Glover v. Roman ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 DAYQUON GLOVER, Case No. 3:23-cv-00378-RCJ-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ROMAN, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Plaintiff Dayquon Glover 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 August 8, 2023, this Court ordered Glover to file a fully 15 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or 16 before October 9, 2023. (ECF No. 6). The Court warned Glover that the action could 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. 19 at 2). That deadline expired and Glover did not file a fully complete application to proceed 20 in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee. Because Plaintiff submitted a financial 21 certificate and a six-month account statement, the Court considered meaningful 22 alternatives to dismissal and issued another order granting Plaintiff one final opportunity 23 to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. That deadline expired, and Glover 24 still has not filed a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full 25 $402 filing fee, or otherwise responded. 26 I. DISCUSSION 27 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 28 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 2 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 3 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 4 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 5 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 6 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 7 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 8 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 9 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 10 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 11 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 12 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 13 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 14 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Glover’s 15 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 16 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 17 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 18 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 19 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 20 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 21 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 22 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 23 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 24 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 25 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 26 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 27 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 28 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 1 || Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 2 || case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 3 || F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 4 || unless Glover either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays 5 || the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a third order setting 6 || another deadline. But the reality of repeating two ignored orders is that it often only delays 7 || the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not 8 || indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Glover needs additional 9 || time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s order. Setting a third deadline is not 10 || a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 11 || Il. CONCLUSION 12 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 13 || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 14 || prejudice based on Glover's failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 15 || pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s August 8, 2023, and 16 || October 13, 2023, orders. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly 17 || and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Glover 18 || wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 19 20 DATED THIS 8th day of January 2024. 22 * ROBERT C. JQNES 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28