Brown v. Dyer ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Cornelius E. Brown, Case No. 3:23-cv-00626-ART-CLB 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 5 Dyer, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Cornelius Brown initiated this action with an application to 9 proceed in forma pauperis and access prison grievance records. (ECF Nos. 1, 1- 10 1). But Brown did not file a complaint. So on December 11, 2023, this Court 11 ordered Brown to file a complaint on or before January 25, 2024. (ECF No. 3). 12 That deadline expired and Brown did not file a complaint or otherwise respond. 13 I. DISCUSSION 14 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 15 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 16 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 17 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 18 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 19 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 20 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 21 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 22 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 23 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 24 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 25 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 26 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 27 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 28 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 1 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 2 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 3 dismissal of Brown’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also 4 weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 5 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 6 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 7 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 8 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 9 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 10 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 11 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 12 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 13 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 14 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 15 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 16 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 17 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 18 until Brown files a complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order 19 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it 20 often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The 21 circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting a 22 second deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So 23 the fifth factor favors dismissal. 24 II. CONCLUSION 25 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 26 they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 27 dismissed without prejudice based on Cornelius Brown’s failure to file a 28 complaint in compliance with this Court’s December 11, 2023, order. The Clerk 1 || of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 2 || documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Cornelius Brown wishes to 3 || pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the 4 || required filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status. 5 6 DATED THIS 8t day of February 2024. 7 Ap. jlosed Jer 8 ANNE R. TRAUM 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28