Jones v. Kingera ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 JOHNNY LEE JONES, III, Case No. 2:23-cv-01587-RFB-MDC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 JIM KINGERA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Plaintiff Johnny Lee Jones, III brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 13 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High Desert State 14 Prison. ECF No. 1-1. On October 13, 2023, this Court ordered Jones to file a fully complete 15 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before December 12, 16 2023. ECF No. 3. The Court warned Jones that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a 17 fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full 18 $402 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. Id. at 2. That deadline expired and Jones did not 19 file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $402 filing fee, or 20 otherwise respond. 21 I. DISCUSSION 22 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 23 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 24 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 25 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 26 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 27 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 28 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In 2 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 3 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 4 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 5 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 6 833 F.2d at 130. 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 8 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Jones’s claims. The third 9 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 10 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 11 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 12 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 13 the factors favoring dismissal. 14 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 15 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 16 v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 17 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 18 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive 19 force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives 20 prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting 21 of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been 22 “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 23 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 24 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 25 unless Jones either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the $402 26 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. 27 But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders 28 the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an 1 || exception: there is no hint that Jones needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the 2 || Court’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. 3 || So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 4} IL CONCLUSION 5 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 6 || favor of dismissal. 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 8 || Jones’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 9 || filing fee in compliance with this Court’s October 13, 2023, order. The Clerk of Court is directed 10 || to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now- 11 || closed case. If Jones wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may move to reopen this case and vacate the 13 || judgment by filing a motion for reconsideration of this order. In this motion, the Plaintiff is 14 || required to explain what circumstances delayed him from paying the filing fee or filing the 15 || application to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1. Ifthe Court 16 || finds there to be good cause or a reasonable explanation therein, the Court will reopen the case 17 || and vacate the judgment. 18 DATED: January 19, 2024. 19 20 AS 21 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28