Love-Camp v. Williams ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ROYAL LOVE-CAMP, Case No. 2:23-cv-00964-ART-BNW 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 5 BRIAN WILLAIMS, SR., et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Royal Love-Camp 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 High Desert State Prison. (ECF No. 1-1). On November 20, 2023, 11 this Court ordered Love-Camp to either file a fully complete application to proceed 12 in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before December 20, 2023. 13 (ECF No. 15). This was Love-Camp’s second extension of the deadline. (ECF 14 Nos. 3, 4, 10, 15). The Court warned Love-Camp that the action could be 15 dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 16 pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action 17 by the extended deadline. (ECF No. 15 at 2). The extended deadline has expired, 18 but Love-Camp did not file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the 19 required filing fee, or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 20 I. DISCUSSION 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 22 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 23 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 24 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 25 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 26 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 27 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 28 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 1 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 2 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 3 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 5 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 6 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 7 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 8 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 9 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 10 dismissal of Love-Camp’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 11 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 12 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 13 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 14 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 15 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 16 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 17 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 18 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 19 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 20 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 21 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 22 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 23 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 24 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 25 until Love-Camp either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma 26 pauperis or pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to 27 enter an order setting a third deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored 28 order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite 1 || resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an 2 || exception because Love-Camp ignored the Court’s second order. Setting a third 3 || deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth 4 || factor favors dismissal. 5 || II. CONCLUSION 6 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 7 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 8 || dismissed without prejudice based on Royal Love-Camp’s failure to file a fully 9 || complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee 10 || in compliance with this Court’s August 23 and 28 and November 20, 2023, 11 || orders. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 12 || this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Royal Love- 13 || Camp wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and 14 || either pay the required filing fee or file a fully complete application to proceed in 15 || forma pauperis. 16 V7 DATED THIS 12 day of January 2024. 18 Ars paid iden 19 ANNE R. TRAUM 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28