Martin v. The State of Nevada ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 NATHANAEL TRAVON MARTIN, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01319-APG-MDC 4 Plaintiff Dismissal Order 5 v. 6 STATE OF NEVADA AND CLARK COUNTY, 7 Defendants 8 9 Plaintiff Nathanael Martin brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 10 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while detained at Clark County 11 Detention Center (CCDC). ECF No. 3 at 1. On March 4, 2024, I ordered Martin to file an 12 amended complaint by April 5, 2024. ECF No. 7 at 8. I warned Martin that the action could be 13 dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline. Id. That deadline expired 14 and Martin did not file an amended complaint or move for an extension. Martin did, however, 15 file a motion requesting that I reverse my decision in the screening order granting his application 16 to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 8 at 1. It appears from the motion that Martin would like 17 to file for a writ of habeas corpus. Id. Because Plaintiff pursued this civil-rights case, I screened 18 his civil-rights complaint, so the court must collect filing fees,1 I deny his motion requesting the 19 20 21 1 The United States District Court for the District of Nevada must collect filing fees from parties initiating civil actions. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The fee for filing a civil-rights action initiated 22 before December 1, 2023, is $402, which includes the $350 filing fee and the $52 administrative fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b). In forma pauperis status does not relieve an inmate of his or her 23 obligation to pay the filing fee, it just means that the inmate can pay the fee in installments. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). 1 reversal of my decision to grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis and collect the 2 filing fee. 3 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 4 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 5 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 6 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 7 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 8 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. 9 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 10 order). In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, I must consider: 11 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 12 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 13 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 14 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone 15 v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 16 The first two factors (the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 17 court’s interest in managing its docket) weigh in favor of dismissal of Martin’s claims. The third 18 factor (risk of prejudice to defendants) also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption 19 of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the 20 court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The 21 fourth factor (the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits) is greatly 22 outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 23 1 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to 2 correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 3 v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 4 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 5 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive 6 force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives 7 prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial 8 granting of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have 9 been “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 10 finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 11 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 12 unless Martin files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 13 another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the 14 inevitable and squanders the court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that 15 this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Martin needs additional time or evidence that 16 he did not receive the screening order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative 17 given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 18 These factors weigh in favor of dismissal. I therefore order that this action is dismissed 19 without prejudice based on Martin’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with my 20 March 4, 2024, order and for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter 21 judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed 22 case. If Martin wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 23 1 I further order that Martin’s motion (ECF No. 8) is denied without prejudice. If Martin wishes to file for a petition for writ of habeas corpus, he must start his habeas action and satisfy the matter of the filing fee in a new case. 4 Dated: April 11, 2024 5 G7 US. District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23