Jordan v. City of Reno ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 ZAVON NATHAN JORDAN, Case No. 3:19-cv-00266-MMD-WGC 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 CITY OF RENO, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 15 On August 20, 2019, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file his updated 16 address with this Court within by September 9, 2019. (ECF No. 9.) To date, Plaintiff has 17 not filed his updated address or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 18 District courts possess the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 19 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 20 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 21 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to 22 prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See 23 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 24 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 25 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 26 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 27 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to 1 comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 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 expressly stated: “Plaintiff will have until Monday, September 9, 2019, to file a notice of 22 change of address or this case will be dismissed.” (ECF No. 9.) Thus, Plaintiff had 23 adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s 24 order to file his updated address. 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 August 20, 27 2019 order. 1 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2|| (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot. 3 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court close this case. 4 DATED THIS 10 day of September 2019. 6 MIRANDA MDOT 7 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28