Allen v. Baker ( 2019 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 RONALD LEE ALLEN, Case No. 3:18-cv-00038-MMD-WGC 7 Plaintiff ORDER v. 8 RENE BAKER, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 At the time Plaintiff initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, he was in the 12 custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”). After remand from the Ninth 13 Circuit, this Court issued a screening order that permitted Plaintiff’s ex post facto claim to 14 proceed against the defendants if Plaintiff filed his updated address with the Court on or 15 before Friday, November 22, 2019. (ECF Nos. 9, 13.) The deadline has now expired, and 16 Plaintiff has 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 exercise 18 of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a 19 case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 20 A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 21 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. 22 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local 23 rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for 24 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 25 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 26 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 27 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court 28 /// 2 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. See 8 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 9 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 10 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 11 factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 12 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 13 ordered by the Court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 14 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 15 merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, 16 a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal 17 satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 18 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to 19 file his updated address with the Court on or before Friday, November 22, 2019, expressly 20 stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to timely file his updated address, the Court 21 will dismiss this action without prejudice.” (ECF No. 13 at 8.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 22 warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file 23 his updated address on or before Friday, November 22, 2019. 24 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 25 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s October 24, 26 2019 order. 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly. 2 DATED THIS 3° day of December 2019. ‘ MIRANDA M. DU 5 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28