Robinson v. Lombardo ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Case No.: 2:18-cv-02330-JAD-VCF AVERY D. ROBINSON, 5 Plaintiff 6 OrderDismissing Action v. 7 JOSEPH LOMBARDO,et al., 8 Defendants 9 10 Plaintiff Avery D. Robinsonbrings this civil-rights case under § 1983 for events he 11 alleges occurred during his incarceration at Clark County Detention Center, South Desert 12 Correctional Center, and High Desert State Prison.1 On October 29, 2019, the magistrate judge 13 denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot andordered 14 Robinsonto file an application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner with the court 15 within 30days.2 The magistrate judge expressly warned him that his failure to timely comply 16 with the order mayresult in the dismissal of this case.3 The deadline has passed, and Robinson 17 has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 19 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.4 A 20 court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 21 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.5 In determining whether to 22 1 ECF No. 1-1(complaint). 23 24 2 ECF No. 4(order). 25 3 Id. 26 4 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 5 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with 28 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 1 1 dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 2 local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 3 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 4 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 5 availability of less drastic alternatives.6 6 I find that the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving the 7 litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissing this case. 8 The risk-of-prejudice factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 9 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 10 prosecuting an action.7 The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 11 dismissal, and a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in 12 dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement.8 Robinson was warned that his 13 case wouldbe dismissed if he failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non- 14 prisoner within 30 days.9 So, Robinson had adequate warning that his failure to file an 15 application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner would result in this case’s dismissal. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSEDwithout 17 prejudicebased on Robinson’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this court’s 18 October 29, 2019, order; and 19 20 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440– 21 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 22 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 23 24 6 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 25 7 See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 26 27 8 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 28 9ECF No. 4 (order). 2 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS 2 || CASE. 3 DATED: 12-16-19 4 aspen Oty Dorsey 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28