Allison v. The State of Nevada ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 RONALD J. ALLISON, Case No. 2:21-cv-01717-GMN-BNW 4 Plaintiff ORDER 5 v. 6 THE STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 On September 17, 2021, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a 10 complaint in compliance with Local Special Rule 2-1 ("LSR 2-1") and a fully complete 11 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before 12 November 15, 2021. (ECF No. 3). The November 15, 2021 deadline has now expired, 13 and Plaintiff has not filed a complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1, a fully complete 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise 15 responded to the Court’s order. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 17 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 18 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 19 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 20 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 21 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 22 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 23 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 24 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 25 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 26 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 27 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 28 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 1 local rules). 2 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 3 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 4 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 5 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 6 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 7 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 8 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 9 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 10 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 11 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 12 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 13 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 14 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 15 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 16 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 17 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 18 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 19 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a complaint in compliance with 20 LSR 2-1 and a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 21 filing fee on or before November 15, 2021 expressly stated: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 22 that, if Plaintiff does not file a complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1 on or before 23 November 15, 2021, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for Plaintiff to 24 refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when Plaintiff is able to file a 25 complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1." The Court's order further stated: “IT IS 26 FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file a fully complete application to proceed 27 in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action 28 on or before November 15, 2021, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice 1 for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when Plaintiff is 2 has all three documents needed to file a complete application to proceed in forma 3 pauperis or pays the the full $402 filing fee.” (ECF No. 3 at 2-3). Thus, Plaintiff had 4 adequate warning that dismissal would result from noncompliance with the Court’s order 5 to file a complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1 and a fully complete application to proceed 6 in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before November 15, 2021. 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 8 based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1 and a fully 9 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in 10 compliance with this Court’s order dated September 17, 2021. (ECF No. 3). 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter 12 judgment accordingly. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 13 DATED: D_e_c_e_m_b_e_r_ 1_,_ _2_0_2_1 14 _______________________________ 15 GLORIA M. NAVARRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28