Randal v. Director of Nursing H.D.S.P. ( 2023 )

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 ROBERT RANDAL, Case No. 2:22-cv-01957-CDS-NJK 5 Plaintiff ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE v. 6 7 DIRECTOR OF NURSING H.D.S.P., 8 Defendant 9 10 Pro se plaintiff Robert Randal brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 11 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High Desert 12 State Prison. ECF No. 1. Randal, however, did not pay the $402 filing fee for a civil action or 13 apply to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). On January 6, 2023, Magistrate Judge Nancy Koppe 14 ordered Randal to either pay the required filing fee or properly apply to proceed IFP by February 15 7, 2023. ECF No. 3. That deadline expired and Randal did not file an IFP application, pay the 16 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 17 I. DISCUSSION 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 19 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 20 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss 21 an action based 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 comply with local 23 rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 24 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 25 whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s 26 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 27 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 28 2 Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and 4 the court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Randal’s claims. The 5 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 6 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 7 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 8 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is 9 greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 10 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to 11 correct the party’s failure that brought about the need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. 12 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 13 Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 14 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 15 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and unless Randal 16 either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the $402 filing fee 17 for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the 18 reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the 19 court’s finite resources. 20 The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception because there 21 is no showing that Randal needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive Magistrate 22 Judge Koppe’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 23 circumstances. Thus, the fifth factor favors dismissal. Having thoroughly considered these 24 dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of dismissal. 25 II. CONCLUSION 26 It is therefore ordered that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on 27 plaintiff Robert Randal’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or 28 pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with Magistrate Judge Koppe’s January 6, 2023, order. 2 documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Randal wishes to pursue his claims, he must 3 file a complaint in a new case. 4 DATED: March 15, 2023 5 6 Cristina D. Silva 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28