Guardado v. Daniels ( 2024 )

2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 ERNEST GUARDADO, Case No. 2:21-cv-01248-RFB-EJY 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v. 9 CHARLES DANIELS, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 Plaintiff Ernest Guardado brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress 14 constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. 15 ECF No. 1-1. Guardado, a former prisoner, initiated this case with an application to proceed in 16 forma pauperis for inmates. ECF No. 3. However, Guardado was subsequently released from 17 prison, and on November 27, 2023, this Court ordered Guardado to either file a non-prisoner 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the $402 filing fee, by February 21, 2024. ECF 19 No. 11. That deadline expired, and Guardado did not file an application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis for non-prisoners, pay the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 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 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 3 (3)the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 4 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 5 Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 6 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 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 Guardado’s claims. The 9 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 10 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered 11 by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 12 The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly 13 outweighed by 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 Guardado either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the 26 $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another 27 deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and 28 squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will 1 || be an exception: there is no hint that Guardado needs additional time or evidence that he did not 2 || receive the Court’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 3 || circumstances. 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. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 7 || Guardado’s failure to file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the full 8 || $402 filing fee, in compliance with this Court’s November 27, 2023, order. The Clerk of Court is 9 || directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in 10 || this now-closed case. If Guardado wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new 11 || case and file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing 12 || fee. 13 Dated: April 24, 2024. tS 15 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28