Kartsone v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Constantine Kartsone, Case No.: 2:20-cv-02222-JAD-EJY 4 Plaintiff 5 v. Order Dismissing Action 6 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 Plaintiff Constantine Kartsone brings this civil-rights case under § 1983 for events he 10 alleges occurred during his incarceration at the Clark County Detention Center.1 On September 11 9, 2021, the magistrate judge ordered Kartsone to file an updated address with the court by 12 October 8, 2021.2 The magistrate judge expressly warned him that his failure to timely comply 13 with the order would result in the dismissal of this case.3 The deadline has passed, and Kartsone 14 has not filed an updated address. 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 16 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.4 A 17 court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 18 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.5 In determining whether to 19 20 1 ECF No. 1-1 (complaint). 21 2 ECF No. 9 (order). 22 3 Id. 4 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 23 5 See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. 1 dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 2 local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 3 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 4 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 5 availability of less drastic alternatives.6 6 I find that the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving the 7 litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissing this case. 8 The risk-of-prejudice factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 9 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 10 prosecuting an action.7 The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 11 dismissal, and a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in 12 dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement.8 Kartsone was warned that his 13 case would be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to update his address by October 8, 2021.9 14 So, Kartsone had adequate warning that his failure to update his address would result in this 15 case’s dismissal. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without 17 prejudice based on Kartsone’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this court’s 18 September 9, 2021, order; and 19 20 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 21 order). 6 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130. 22 7 See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 23 8 Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33. 9 ECF No. 9 (order). ] The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS 2|| CASE. 3 Dated: October 14, 2021 US. District Judge Jen fren. Dorsey 5 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23