Sampson v. W.C.S.O. ( 2023 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 KARA SAMPSON, Case No. 3:22-cv-00418-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 W.C.S.O., et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Kara Sampson brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 13 to redress constitutional violations she claims to have suffered while incarcerated at 14 Washoe County Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1.) On November 21, 2022, this Court 15 ordered Sampson to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 16 the full $402 filing fee on or before January 23, 2023. (ECF No. 3.) The Court warned 17 Sampson that the action could be dismissed if she failed to file a fully complete application 18 to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a 19 civil action by that deadline. (Id. at 3-4.) 20 The Court’s order came back as undeliverable with a notation that Plaintiff was 21 “Not Here.” (ECF No. 4.) Under Local Rule IA 3-1, a “pro se party must immediately file 22 with the court written notification of any change of mailing address, email address, 23 telephone number, or facsimile number. The notification must include proof of service on 24 each opposing party or the party’s attorney. Failure to comply with this rule may result in 25 the dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as deemed 26 appropriate by the court.” LR IA 3-1. The Court sent Sampson an advisory letter which 27 explained, among other things, that she must immediately file any change of address with 28 the Court. (ECF No. 2.) The January 23, 2023 deadline expired, and Sampson has not 2 or file an updated address. 3 I. DISCUSSION 4 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 5 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 6 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 7 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or 8 comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 9 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep 10 court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 11 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss an 12 action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 13 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 14 of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 15 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 16 Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal 17 Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 18 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 19 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Sampson’s 20 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 21 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 22 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 23 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of 24 cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 25 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 26 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 27 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 28 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 2 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 3 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 4 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 5 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 6 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 7 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 8 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 9 unless Sampson either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or 10 pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order 11 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an order is that it often only delays 12 the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not 13 indicate that this case will be an exception. The Court’s order came back as undeliverable 14 to the address on file with the Court, and Sampson has not filed an updated address. As 15 such, it does not appear that another order would even reach Sampson. Setting another 16 deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor 17 favors dismissal. 18 II. CONCLUSION 19 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 20 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 21 prejudice based on Sampson’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in 22 forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s November 23 21, 2022 order, and Sampson’s failure to notify the Court of a change to her mailing 24 address. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Sampson wishes to 2 || pursue her claims, she must file a complaint in a new case. 3 DATED THIS 8" Day of February 2023. 5 MIRANDA M. DU 6 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28