Matthews v. Williams ( 2021 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 IVAN LEE MATTHEWS, II, Case No. 3:21-cv-00320-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Plaintiff Ivan Lee Matthews, II, ("Matthews") brings this civil-rights action under 42 13 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 14 incarcerated at Ely State Prison. (ECF No. 1-1.) On September 27, 2021, this Court 15 ordered Matthews to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis by an 16 inmate or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before November 25, 2021. (ECF No. 6.) The 17 Court warned Matthews that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a fully 18 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis by an inmate with all three documents 19 or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. (Id. at 3.) That deadline 20 expired and Matthews did not file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 21 pauperis, pay the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 22 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 23 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 24 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 25 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 26 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 27 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 28 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 2 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 3 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 4 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 5 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 6 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 7 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 8 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 9 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Matthews’ 10 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 11 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 12 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 13 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 14 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 15 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 16 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 17 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 18 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 19 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 20 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 21 “implicitly accepted pursuit of last drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 22 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 23 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 24 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 25 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 26 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 27 unless Matthews either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or 28 pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order 1 || setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 2 || delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 3 || do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Matthews needs 4 || additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s order. Setting another 5 || deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor 6 || favors dismissal. 7 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 8 || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 9 || prejudice based on Matthews’ failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in 10 || forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s September 11 || 27, 2021, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 12 || this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If lvan Lee Matthews 13 || wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 14 DATED THIS 8" Day of December 2021. 16 MIRANDA M. DU 17 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28