Alvies v. Clark County Detention Center ( 2019 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 JOHN H. ALVIES, Case No. 2:18-cv-01764-MMD-GWF 7 Plaintiff ORDER v. 8 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, 9 et al., 10 Defendants 11 12 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 13 by an individual formerly incarcerated in Clark County Detention Center. On June 25, 14 2019, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file his updated address with this 15 Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 3.) The 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has 16 not filed his updated address 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 L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 20 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to 21 prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See 22 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 Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court 21 within 30 days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely 22 comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 3 at 23 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 24 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address within 30 days. 25 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 26 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s June 25, 2019, 27 order. 28 /// 1 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) 2|| is denied as moot. 3 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly. 4 DATED THIS 5" day of August 2019. 6 MIRANDA M-DU———— 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28