Akins v. Wilson ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:23-cv-01039-JAD-DJA Louiscreas Akins, 4 Plaintiff 5 v. Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and 6 Alarmco, et al., Dismissing Action 7 Defendants [ECF No. 7] 8 9 Pro se plaintiff Louiscreas Akins brings this class-action employment-discrimination case 10 against Alarmco and some of its employees.1 On October 10, 2023, the magistrate judge 11 dismissed Akins’s claims with leave to amend by November 29, 2023, and warned her that this 12 case would be dismissed and closed if she failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline.2 13 Akins neither filed an amended complaint by that deadline nor moved for an extension of time to 14 do so, so the magistrate judge recommends that this case be dismissed.3 Akins didn’t object to 15 that recommendation by the deadline. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 17 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.4 A 18 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order.5 In determining 19 20 1 See ECF No. 6. 2 ECF No. 5 at 4. 21 3 ECF No. 7. 22 4 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 5 See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply 23 with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 1 whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s 2 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 3 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 4 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.6 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 6 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of 7 prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises 8 from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 9 prosecuting an action.7 The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 10 their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 11 The fifth factor requires the court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 12 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal.8 Courts 13 “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 14 explore possible and meaningful alternatives.”9 Because this action cannot proceed until and 15 unless Akins files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 16 another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the 17 inevitable and squanders the court’s finite resources along the way. The circumstances here do 18 6 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61. 19 7 See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 20 8 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); 21 accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 543 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic 22 alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element,” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to 23 comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 9 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). 1} not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no indication that Akins needs additional 2|| time nor evidence that she did not receive the court’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 4 Having thoroughly weighed these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of dismissal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s recommendation [ECF No. 7] is ADOPTED and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to file amended complaint in compliance with the court’s orders. The Clerk of Court is directed to 8] ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. If Akins wishes to pursue her 9|| claims, she must file a complaint in a new case. U.S. Distr (lge jenifer Dorsey 11 Apri 11, 2024 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23