Ramsey v. CCDC ( 2023 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 RHONDA RAMSEY, Case No. 2:23-cv-00122-RFB-NJK 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CCDC, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Plaintiff Rhonda Ramsey brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 13 redress constitutional violations that she claims she suffered while incarcerated at Clark 14 County Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1.) On February 17, 2023, this Court ordered 15 Ramsey to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full 16 $402 filing fee on or before April 21, 2023. (ECF No. 4.) The Court warned Ramsey that 17 the action could be dismissed if she failed to file a fully complete application to proceed 18 in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action 19 by that deadline. (Id. at 2.) That deadline expired and Ramsey did not file a fully complete 20 application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 21 I. DISCUSSION 22 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 23 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 24 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 25 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 26 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 27 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 28 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 2 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 3 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 4 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 5 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 6 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 7 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 8 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 9 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Ramsey’s 10 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 11 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 12 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 13 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 14 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 15 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 16 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 17 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 18 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 19 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 20 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 21 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 22 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 23 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 24 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 25 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 26 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 27 unless Ramsey either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or 28 pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order 1 || setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 2 || delays the inevitable and squanders the Court's finite resources. The circumstances here 3 || do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Ramsey needs 4 || additional time or evidence that she did not receive the Court’s order. Setting another 5 || deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. Thus, the fifth factor 6 || favors dismissal. 7 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 8 || weigh in favor of dismissal. 9 || Ul. CONCLUSION 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 11 || based on Ramsey’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis 12 || or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s February 17, 2023 Order. 13 || The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 14 || documents may be filed in this now-closed case, except as provided below. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ramsey may move to reopen this case and 16 || vacate the judgment by filing a motion for reconsideration of this order. In this motion, 17 || Ramsey would need to explain that circumstances which led to her not being able to 18 || respond to the Court’s February 17, 2023 Order. If the Court finds there is good cause or 19 || a reasonable explanation for the failure to respond, the Court will reopen the case and 20 || vacate the judgment. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send Plaintiff a copy of this 21 || order. 22 23 DATED THIS 24" day of May 2022. rm RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28