Booker v. High Desert State Prison ( 2023 )

1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 DAVID BOOKER, Case No. 2:23-cv-00469-ART-DJA 3 Plaintiff, ORDER 4 v. 5 HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 Plaintiff David Booker brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 8 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated. 9 (ECF No. 1-1). On April 4, 2023, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully complete 10 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before 11 June 5, 2023. (ECF No. 3). The Court warned Plaintiff that the action could be 12 dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 13 pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action 14 by that deadline. (Id. at 2). That deadline expired and Plaintiff did not file a fully 15 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee. 16 Because Plaintiff submitted an incomplete application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis, the Court considered meaningful alternatives to dismissal and issued 18 an order granting Plaintiff another opportunity to submit a complete application. 19 (ECF Nos. 4, 16). After filing several documents unrelated to his application to 20 proceed in forma pauperis, the Court sua sponte issued another extension of time 21 for Plaintiff to file a complete application. (ECF No. 20). In response, Plaintiff 22 filed another incomplete application. (ECF No. 24). The Court granted Plaintiff 23 another extension of time to file a completed financial certificate and an inmate 24 accounting statement. (ECF No. 26). After Plaintiff sought an extension of time, 25 the Court granted Plaintiff until December 4, 2023, to file a completed financial 26 certificate and an inmate accounting statement. (ECF Nos. 27, 29). That deadline 27 expired and Plaintiff still has not filed a fully complete application to proceed in 28 1 forma pauperis, paid the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise responded. 2 I. DISCUSSION 3 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 4 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 5 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 6 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 7 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 8 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 9 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 10 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 11 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 12 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 13 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 14 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 15 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 16 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 17 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 18 Cir. 1987)). 19 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 20 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 21 dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 22 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 23 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 24 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 25 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 26 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 27 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 28 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 1 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 2 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 3 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 4 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 5 “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted 6 pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as 7 satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 8 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 9 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 10 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 11 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action 12 cannot realistically proceed until and unless Plaintiff either files a fully complete 13 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the $402 filing fee for a civil 14 action, the only alternative is to enter a sixth order setting another deadline. But 15 the reality of repeating five ignored orders is that it often only delays the inevitable 16 and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not 17 indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Plaintiff needs 18 additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s order. Setting a 19 sixth deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the 20 fifth factor favors dismissal. 21 II. CONCLUSION 22 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 23 they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 24 dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a fully complete 25 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in 26 compliance with this Court’s five previous orders. The Clerk of Court is directed 27 to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be 28 filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file 1 || a complaint in a new case. 2 It is further ordered that the outstanding motions (ECF Nos. 21, 24) are 3 || denied as moot in this closed case. 4 DATED THIS 20th day of December 2023. 6 An jlosed 1m 7 ANNE R. TRAUM 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28