Matthews v. Gentry ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 IVAN LEE MATTHEWS, II, Case No. 3:18-cv-00564-MMD-CLB 4 Plaintiff ORDER 5 v. 6 JO GENTRY, et al., Defendants 7 8 This action began with a pro se civil rights Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 9 by a state prisoner. On October 24, 2019, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to 10 file his updated address with this Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 3.) The 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded 11 to the Court’s order. 12 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 13 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 14 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 15 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 16 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 17 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 18 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 19 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 20 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 21 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 22 v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure 23 to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 24 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 25 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 26 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 27 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to ' disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 2 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 3 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 4 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 61] dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 10|| disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 43|} requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 44|| at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court 15 within 30 days expressly stated: “IT |S FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely 16 comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 3.) 17 Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance 48 with the Court’s order to file his updated address within 30 days. 49 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 50 Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s October 24, 2019, order. It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot. 2s It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly. 24 25 DATED THIS 6" day of December 2019. 26 Sf 27 MIRANDA M-DU— 38 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE