Coulter v. Sisolak ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 KC COULTER, Case No. 2:20-cv-01327-GMN-DJA 4 Plaintiff ORDER 5 v. 6 STEVE SISOLAK et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 10 1983 by a state prisoner. On August 26, 2021, the Court issued an order dismissing the 11 complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 12 30 days. (ECF No. 12 at 6). The 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not 13 filed an 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 30 18 days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended 19 complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, the Court will dismiss this action 20 without prejudice for Plaintiff to initiate a new lawsuit when he is able to submit a complaint 21 that complies with the FRCP.” (ECF No. 12 at 7). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning 22 that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an 23 amended complaint within 30 days. 24 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 25 Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s August 26, 26 2021, order. 27 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 28 No. 4) is granted. Plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial installment of the filing 1 fee. Even though this action is dismissed, the full filing fee must still be paid pursuant to 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 3 It is further ordered that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison 4 Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections will forward payments from 5 the account of KC Coulter, #1086155 to the Clerk of the United States District Court, 6 District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits (in months that the account 7 exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of 8 the Court will send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. The 9 Clerk will send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the 10 Nevada Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702. 11 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close this case and enter judgment 12 accordingly. 13 14 DATED THIS __8__ day of October 2021. 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28