Wilkerson v. Daniels ( 2021 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 ANTHONY WILKERSON, Case No. 3:20-cv-00531-MMD-WGC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CHARLES DANIELS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 12 by Anthony Wilkerson, a former state prisoner. On June 8, 2021, this Court issued an 13 order directing Wilkerson to file his updated address and a non-prisoner application to 14 proceed in forma pauperis with this Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 3.) The 30-day period 15 has now expired, and Wilkerson has not filed his updated address, filed a non-prisoner 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 18 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 19 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 20 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 21 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 22 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 23 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 24 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 25 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 26 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 27 v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to 28 2 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 4 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 8 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 9 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 10 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 11 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 12 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 13 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 14 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 15 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 16 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 17 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 18 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 19 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 20 at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Wilkerson to file his updated address and file a non- 21 prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis with the Court within thirty (30) days 22 expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if [Wilkerson] fails to timely comply 23 with this order, this case may be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.) 24 Thus, Wilkerson had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 25 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address and a non-prisoner 26 application to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days. 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 2|| Wilkerson’s failure to file an updated address and a non-prisoner application to proceed 3|| in forma pauperis in compliance with this Court’s June 8, 2021, order. 4 The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to close this case. 5 DATED THIS 18" Day of August 2021. 6 LO 8 MIRANDA M. DU 9 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28