Grove v. Carpenter ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 GEOFFREY GROVE, Case No. 3:18-cv-00321-RCJ-CLB 4 Plaintiff DISMISSAL ORDER 5 v. 6 TARA CARPENTER et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by 10 a state prisoner. On October 7, 2019, this Court issued an order dismissing the complaint 11 with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 12 (ECF No. 5.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an 13 amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 14 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 15 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 16 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 17 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 18 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 19 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 20 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 21 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 22 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 23 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 24 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 25 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 26 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 27 local rules). 28 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 1 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 2 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 3 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 4 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 5 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 6 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 7 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 8 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 9 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 10 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 11 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 12 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 13 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 14 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 15 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 16 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 17 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 18 thirty days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended 19 complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be dismissed with 20 prejudice for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 5 at 7.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 21 warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file 22 an amended complaint within thirty days. 23 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on 24 Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s October 7, 25 2019, order. 26 It is further ordered that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is 27 denied as moot. 28 /// 1 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 2 3 DATED this 23"¢ day of December, 2019. 9 UNITED STAT 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 -3-