Church v. Washoe County Sheriff's Office ( 2019 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 CAMERON CHURCH, Case No. 3:19-cv-00677-MMD-WGC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v. 9 WASHOE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 14 by a prisoner incarcerated at the Washoe County Detention Center. On November 18, 15 2019, this Court ordered Plaintiff to either: (1) file an inmate account statement for the 16 past six months in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); or (2) pay the full $400 fee for 17 filing a civil action within 30 days from the date of that order. (ECF No. 3). The 30-day 18 period has now expired and Plaintiff has not filed an inmate account statement for the 19 past six months, paid the full $400 filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 21 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 22 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 23 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 24 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 25 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 26 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 27 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 28 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 1 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 2 v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to 3 comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 4 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 5 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 6 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 7 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 8 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 9 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 10 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 11 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 12 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 13 factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 14 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 15 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 16 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 17 merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, 18 a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal 19 satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 20 Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring 21 Plaintiff to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee 22 within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to 23 timely file an inmate account statement, the Court will dismiss the case, without prejudice, 24 for Plaintiff to file a new case when he is able to acquire the necessary documents to file 25 a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had 26 adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s 27 order to file an inmate account statement for the past six months or pay the full $400 filing 28 fee within 30 days. 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 2 | Plaintiff's failure to file an inmate account statement for the past six months or pay the full $400 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s November 18, 2019 order. 4 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court close the case and enter judgment 5 | accordingly. 6 DATED THIS 31* day of December 2019. — 9 KARANDA ROS 40 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-