Stevens v. Suwe ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 THEODORE STEVENS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00427-ART-CSD 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 5 SUWE, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Theodore Stevens brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 9 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 10 incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1-1). On 11 September 5, 2023, this Court ordered Stevens to either file a fully complete 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before 13 November 6, 2023. (ECF No. 7). Before that deadline expired, Stevens filed 14 documents that the Court construed as seeking an extension of time, and the 15 Court extended the deadline to January 2, 2024. (ECF No. 13). The Court warned 16 Stevens that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete 17 application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full 18 $402 filing fee for a civil action by the extended deadline. (Id. at 2). The extended 19 deadline has expired, but Stevens did not file an application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis, pay the required filing fee, or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 21 I. DISCUSSION 22 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 23 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 24 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 25 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 26 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 27 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 28 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 1 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 2 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 3 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 4 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 5 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 6 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 7 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 8 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 9 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 10 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 11 dismissal of Stevens’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 12 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 13 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 14 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 15 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 16 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 17 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 18 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 19 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 20 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 21 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 22 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 23 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 24 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 25 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 26 until Stevens either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis 27 or pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter an 28 order setting a third deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that 1 || it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The 2 || circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception because 3 || Stevens ignored the Court’s second order. Setting a third deadline is not a 4 || meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors 5 || dismissal. 6 || II. CONCLUSION 7 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 8 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 9 || dismissed without prejudice based on Theodore Stevens’s failure to file a fully 10 || complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee 11 || in compliance with this Court’s September 5 and December 1, 2023, orders. The 12 || Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No 13 || other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Theodore Stevens wishes 14 || to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the 15 || required filing fee or file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. 16 V7 Dated this day of January 2024. 18 Ap posed dn 19 ANNE R. TRAUM 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28