Romero v. Washoe County Sheriff's Department ( 2023 )

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 SIDRICK ROMERO, Case No. 3:22-cv-00417-ART-CSD 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v. 6 WASHOE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 10 Plaintiff Sidrick Romero (“Plaintiff”) brings this civil-rights action under 42 11 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered 12 while incarcerated at Washoe County Jail. (ECF No. 1-1.) On January 10, 2023, 13 this Court ordered Plaintiff to update his address by February 9, 2023. (ECF No. 14 8.) That deadline expired without an updated address from Plaintiff, and his mail 15 from the Court is being returned as undeliverable. (See ECF No. 9.) 16 I. DISCUSSION 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 18 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 19 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 20 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 21 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 22 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 23 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) 25 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 26 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 27 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 28 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 2 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 3 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 4 Cir. 1987)). 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 6 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 7 dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 8 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 9 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 10 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 11 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 12 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 14 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 15 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 16 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 17 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 18 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 19 “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted 20 pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as 21 satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 22 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 23 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 24 finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 25 alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). 26 Because this action cannot realistically proceed without the ability for the Court 27 and the defendants to send Plaintiff case-related documents, filings, and orders, 28 the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But 1 || without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even 2 || reach Plaintiff is low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and 3 || further squander the Court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a 4 || meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors 5 || dismissal. 6 || II. CONCLUSION 7 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 8 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 9 || dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address 10 || in compliance with this Court’s January 10, 2023, order. The Clerk of Court is 11 || directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents 12 || may be filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he 13 || must file a complaint in a new case and provide the Court with his current 14 || address. 15 DATED THIS 21st day of February 2023. 16 f ), Vn 17 ANNE R. TRAUM 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28