Jones v. Warden Williams ( 2024 )

1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 PAUL JONES, 3 Case No. 2:23-cv-01083-ART-DJA Plaintiff, 4 v. ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE 5 WILLIAMS, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Paul Jones brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 9 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated 10 at High Desert State Prison. (ECF No. 3-1). On July 21, 2023, this Court ordered 11 Jones to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) or 12 pay the full $402 filing fee on or before September 19, 2023. (ECF No. 4). Jones 13 timely filed an IFP application, but it was incomplete because he did not include 14 a completed financial certificate and an inmate trust fund account statement for 15 the previous six-month period with it. (See ECF No. 5). On October 3, 2023, the 16 Court denied the incomplete IFP application and gave Jones until November 2, 17 2023, to either pay the filing fee or file a new fully complete IFP application. (ECF 18 No. 8). Alternatively if Jones was unable to obtain his financial documents from 19 prison officials, the Court ordered him to complete the first three pages of the IFP 20 application and file it together with a declaration detailing the efforts he took to 21 acquire his financial documents from prison officials. (Id. at 3). The Court warned 22 Jones this action could be dismissed if he failed to comply. (Id.) 23 Jones timely filed an IFP application. (ECF No. 9). But that application, 24 which is Jones’s third attempt to seek pauper status in this action, (see ECF 25 Nos. 3, 5, 9), is incomplete because it is not signed and dated by Jones in either 26 place on page 3, and Jones did not include a completed financial certificate and 27 an inmate account statement with it. Nor did Jones file a declaration detailing 28 his efforts to obtain his financial documents from prison officials. Jones later filed 1 a document titled “Exhausted Grievance Process” that contains grievances 2 records related to the matters at issue in the complaint. (See ECF No. 10). But 3 those records do not concern the documents that Jones must file to properly 4 apply for IFP status. 5 I. DISCUSSION 6 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 7 the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 8 appropriate, default or dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of 9 Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action 10 based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 11 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for 12 failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised 13 of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 14 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 15 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 16 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 17 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 18 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 19 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 20 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 21 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 22 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 23 dismissing Jones’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also 24 weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 25 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 26 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 27 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 28 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 1 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 2 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 3 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 4 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 5 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 6 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 7 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 8 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 9 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 10 until Jones either files a fully complete IFP application or pays the $402 filing fee 11 for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a third order setting another 12 deadline. But the reality of repeating two ignored orders is that it often only delays 13 the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 14 do not indicate that this case will be an exception because Jones has consistently 15 failed to comply with the Court’s orders detailing how he can apply for pauper 16 status. Setting a third deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 17 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 18 II. CONCLUSION 19 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 20 they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 21 dismissed without prejudice based on Paul Jones’s failure to file a fully complete 22 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in 23 compliance with this Court’s July 21 and October 3, 2023, orders. The Clerk of 24 Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 25 documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Paul Jones wishes to pursue 26 his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the required 27 filing fee or properly apply to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 1 It is further ordered that Jones’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 || (ECF No. 9) is denied as incomplete and moot. 3 4 5 DATED THIS 20th day of February 2024. ° jlosed 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28