Matthews v. Ely State Prison ( 2019 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 IVAN LEE MATTHEWS II, Case No. 3:18-cv-00561-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v. 9 ELY STATE PRISON, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 This is a pro se civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a person in 13 the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections. On November 15, 2019, the Court 14 issued an order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend the complaint within 30 15 days. (ECF No. 10 at 8-9.) The time period for filing an amended complaint has now 16 expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the 17 Court’s order. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 19 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 20 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 21 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 22 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 23 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 24 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 25 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 26 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 27 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 28 v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure 1 to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 2 (affirming dismissal for 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. 8 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 9 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 10 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 11 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 12 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 13 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 14 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 15 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring 16 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors weighing in favor 17 of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 18 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 19 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 20 at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days 21 expressly informed Plaintiff that “if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint curing the 22 deficiencies outlined in this order, this action shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure 23 to state a colorable claim against any Defendant and for failure to comply with Rule 8.” 24 (ECF No. 10 at 9.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from 25 his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 26 In sum, the Court will dismiss this case. 27 It addition, it is ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 28 (ECF No. 7) without having to prepay the full filing fee is granted. Plaintiff will not be 1 required to pay an initial installment fee. Nevertheless, the full filing fee will still be due, 2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. The 3 movant herein is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of 4 prepayment of fees or costs or the giving of security therefor. 5 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), the Nevada Department of Corrections will 6 pay to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the 7 preceding month’s deposits to Plaintiff’s account (Ivan Lee Matthews II, #1127748), in the 8 months that the account exceeds $10.00, until the full $350.00 filing fee has been paid 9 for this action. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Finance 10 Division of the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk of the Court will also send a copy of this order to 11 the attention of the Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections, 12 P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702. 13 It is further ordered that the full filing fee will still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 14 §1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. 15 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s 16 failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s November 15, 2019 17 order and for failure to state a claim. 18 The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this 19 case. 20 DATED THIS 18th day of December 2019. 21 22 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28