Thomas v. Washoe County Jail ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 ANTONIO M. THOMAS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00381-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 WASHOE COUNTY JAIL, 9 Defendant. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Plaintiff Antonio M. Thomas brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 13 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at 14 Washoe County Jail. (ECF No. 10.) On March 28, 2024, this Court ordered Thomas to 15 file an amended complaint by April 27, 2024. (ECF No. 9.) The Court warned Thomas 16 that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that 17 deadline. (Id. at 8.) That deadline expired and Thomas did not file an amended complaint, 18 move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 21 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 22 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 23 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 24 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 25 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 26 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 27 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss 28 an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 2 of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 3 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 4 Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 6 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Thomas’s 7 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 8 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 9 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 10 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 11 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 13 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 14 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 15 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 16 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 17 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 18 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 19 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 20 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 21 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 22 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 23 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 24 unless Thomas files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order 25 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 26 delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 27 do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Thomas needs 28 additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening order. Setting 1 || another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth 2 || factor favors dismissal. 3 || Ill. CONCLUSION 4 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 5 || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 6 || prejudice based on Thomas's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this 7 || Court’s Mach 28, 2024, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly 8 || and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Thomas 9 || wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 10 It is further ordered that Thomas's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 11 || No. 1) is denied as moot. 12 DATED THIS 13'" day of May 2024. 14 15 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28