McDougald v. Simmons ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 TYRONE MCDOUGALD, Case No. 2:20-cv-00975-GMN-EJY 4 Plaintiff ORDER 5 v. 6 MICHAEL SIMMONS et al., Defendants 7 8 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 9 by a formerly incarcerated person. On July 9, 2021, this Court issued an order directing 10 Plaintiff to file his updated address with this Court by August 6, 2021. (ECF No. 7). The deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise 11 responded to the Court’s order. 12 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 13 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 14 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 15 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 16 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 17 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 18 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 19 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 20 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 21 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 22 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 23 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 24 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 25 local rules). 26 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 27 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 1 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 2 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 3 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 4 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 5 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 6 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 7 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 8 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 9 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 10 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 11 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 12 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 13 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 14 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the 15 Court by August 6, 2021, expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 16 failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this case 17 without prejudice.” (ECF No. 7). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal 18 would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address by 19 August 6, 2021. 20 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 21 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s July 9, 2021, 22 order. 23 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment 24 accordingly. 25 DATED THIS _1_2__ day of August 2021. 26 27 Gloria M. Navarro, Judge United States District Court