Robinson v. CCDC Medical Staff ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 ROGER ROBINSON, Case No. 2:23-cv-01914-MMD-BNW 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CCDC MEDICAL STAFF, 9 Defendant. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Plaintiff Roger Robinson brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 13 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Clark 14 County Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1.) On December 7, 2023, this Court ordered 15 Robinson to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full 16 $402 filing fee on or before February 9, 2024. (ECF No. 3.) The Court warned Robinson 17 that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete application to proceed 18 in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action 19 by that deadline. (Id. at 2.) That deadline expired and Robinson did not file a fully complete 20 application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 21 Moreover, the Court’s order came back as undeliverable to the address that Robinson 22 provided (ECF No. 4).1 23 II. DISCUSSION 24 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 25 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 26 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 27 28 1It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to ensure he file a notice of change of address. See LR IA 3-1 (imposing on the party the obligation to “immediately file with the court written 2 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 3 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 4 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 5 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 6 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 7 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 8 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 9 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 10 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 11 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 12 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 13 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Robinson’s 14 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 15 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 16 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 17 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 18 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 19 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 20 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 21 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 22 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 23 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 24 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 25 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 26 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 27 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 28 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 1 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 2 || F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 3 || unless Robinson either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or 4 || pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order 5 || setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 6 || delays the inevitable and squanders the Court's finite resources. The circumstances here 7 || do not indicate that this case will be an exception: the Court’s previous order came back 8 || as undeliverable, and there is no reason to believe that another order would even reach 9 || Robinson. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 10 || circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 11 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 12 || weigh in favor of dismissal. 13 || Ill. CONCLUSION 14 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 15 || Robinson's failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 16 || the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s December 7, 2023 order. 17 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 18 || No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Robinson wishes to pursue 19 || his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 20 DATED THIS 20" Day of February 2024. 21 ( : 22 23 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28