- 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 ALAN M. OUTLEY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00075-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 PERRY RUSSELL, 9 Defendant. 10 11 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 12 by a former state prisoner. (ECF No. 1-1.) On September 7, 2021, this Court issued an 13 order directing Outley to file his updated address with this Court by September 24, 2021. 14 (ECF No. 3.) The deadline has now passed, and Outley has not filed his updated address 15 or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 17 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 18 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 19 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 20 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 21 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 22 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 23 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 24 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 25 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); 26 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for 27 failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 28 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 2 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 3 (1) the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to Defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 5 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 6 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 7 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 8 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 9 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 10 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 11 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 12 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 13 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 14 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 15 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 16 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 17 requirement. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 18 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Outley to file his updated address with the Court 19 by September 24, 2021, expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to 20 timely comply with this order, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” 21 (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Thus, Outley had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 22 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address by September 24, 2021. 23 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 24 Outley’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s September 7, 25 2021, order. (ECF No. 3.) 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and enter judgment accordingly. 2 DATED THIS 30" Day of September 2021. 4 MIRANDA 5 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 3:21-cv-00075
Filed Date: 9/30/2021
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/25/2024