Swanson Jr v. NDOC ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 ADRIAN SWANSON JR., Case No. 2:20-cv-01799-GMN-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 6 NDOC, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 I. DISCUSSION 10 This action began with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 11 by a state prisoner. (ECF No. 1-1.) On June 11, 2021, the Court issued a screening 12 order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an 13 amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 10.) Shortly after the Court issued its 14 order, Plaintiff filed a change of address. (ECF No. 12.) On June 23, 2021, the Court 15 sent a copy of the screening order to Plaintiff’s new address. (ECF No. 13-1.) It is now 16 well past the thirty-day deadline, even factoring in any delay due to Plaintiff’s change of 17 address, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the 18 Court’s order. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 22 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 23 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 24 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 25 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 26 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 27 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 1 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 2 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 3 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 4 local rules). 5 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 6 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 7 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 8 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 9 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 10 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 11 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 12 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 13 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 14 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 15 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 16 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 17 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 18 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 19 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 20 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 21 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 22 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 23 thirty days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended 24 complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be dismissed with 25 prejudice for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 10 at 8.) Thus, Plaintiff had 26 adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s 27 order to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 1 II. CONCLUSION 2 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on 3 Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s June 11, 4 2021, order. 5 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 6 7 DATED THIS _1_9__ day of August 2021. 8 9 Gloria M. Navarro, Judge United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27