Boston v. NNCC Medical Department ( 2019 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 JOHN BOSTON, Case No. 3:18-cv-00534-MMD-CBC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v. 9 NORTHERN NEVADA CORRECTIONAL 10 CENTER MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, et al. 11 Defendants. 12 13 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 14 by a former state prisoner. On October 29, 2019, this Court issued an order denying 15 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot and directing 16 Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner within 30 17 days. (ECF No. 4.) The 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner or otherwise responded to the 19 Court’s order. 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise 21 of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a 22 case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 23 A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 24 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. 25 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local 26 rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for 27 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 28 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 2 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with 3 court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming 4 dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining 5 whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure 6 to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest 7 in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 8 of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 9 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; 10 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 11 Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 12 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 13 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 14 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 15 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 16 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 17 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 18 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 19 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the 20 court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 21 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 22 at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court 23 within 30 days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not 24 timely comply with this order, dismissal of this action may result.” (ECF No. 4 at 1.) Thus, 25 Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with 26 the Court’s order to file his updated address within 30 days. 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 2 || Plaintiff's failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for a non-prisoner in 3 || compliance with this Court’s October 29, 2019, order. 4 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly. 5 6 || DATED THIS 13" day of December 2019. A Cl nd 8 IRANDA M. DU 9 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28