Orr v. Freeman ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:19-cv-01012-JAD-CWH 4 Brandon J. Orr et al., 5 Plaintiffs OrderDismissing Action 6 v. 7 Michelle Freeman, et al., 8 Defendants 9 Plaintiffs Brandon J. Orr and Jancie Perrybring this civil-rights case under § 1983.1 On 10 June18, 2019,the magistrate judgedenied Orr’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 11 without prejudice because the application was incomplete and gave him and Perry30 days to 12 each file a fully completed application or pay the $400 filing fee.2 The court expressly warned 13 them that theirfailure to file the completed applications or pay the filing fee, return a complaint 14 with both of their signatures, and file an updated address for Perryby that deadline would result 15 in the dismissal of this case.3 The deadline has passed, and neither Orr nor Perry has responded. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 17 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.4 A 18 court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 19 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.5 In determining whether to 20 21 1 ECF No. 1-1(complaint). 22 2 ECF No. 3(order). 23 24 3 Id. 25 4 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 26 5 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with 27 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440– 28 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 1 1 dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 2 local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 3 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 4 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 5 availability of less drastic alternatives.6 6 I find that the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving the 7 litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissing this case. 8 The risk-of-prejudice factoralso weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 9 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 10 prosecuting an action.7 The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 11 dismissal, and a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in 12 dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement.8 Orr and Perry were warned 13 that theircase would be dismissed if theyfailed tofile fully completed applications or pay the 14 $400 filing fee, return a complaint with both of their signatures, and update Perry’s mailing 15 address.9 So,theyhad adequate warning that their failure topay the fee or submit completed 16 applications, sign the complaint, and update Perry’s address would result in this case’s dismissal. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSEDwithout 18 prejudicebased on Orr and Perry’s failure to file fully completed applications or pay the $400 19 20 21 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 22 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 23 24 6 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 25 7 See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 26 27 8 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 28 9ECF No. 3 (order). 2 1 || filing fee, sign the complaint, and update Perry’s address in compliance with this Court’s June 2 || 18, 2019, order; and 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS 4 || CASE. 5 DATED: August 7, 2019 6 aspen oe Dorsey 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28