Parros v. Rigney ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 NEVIN PARROS, Case 3:22-cv-00561-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CHET RIGNEY, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Plaintiff Nevin Parros brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 13 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Ely State 14 Prison. (ECF No. 1-1.) On January 19, 2023, this Court ordered Parros to file a fully 15 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or 16 before March 20, 2023. (ECF No. 3.) The Court warned Parros that this action would be 17 dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with 18 all three documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. (Id. at 19 2.) That deadline expired and Parros did not file a fully complete application to proceed 20 in forma pauperis, pay the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 22 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 23 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 24 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 25 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 26 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 27 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 1 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 2 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition 3 of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 4 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 5 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 6 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 7 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Parros’s 8 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 9 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 10 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 11 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 12 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 14 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 15 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 16 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 17 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 18 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 19 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 20 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 21 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 22 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 23 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 24 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 25 unless Parros either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays 26 the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 27 another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays 1|| indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Parros needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s order. Setting another deadline is not meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 4 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they || weigh in favor of dismissal. 6 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on || Parros’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s January 19, 2023, order. 9 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Parros wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 12 DATED THIS 14" Day of April 2023. 14 eS 15 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28