Green v. State of Nevada ( 2024 )

DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 Dematheus Green, Case No. 2:23-cv-02050-CDS-BNW 4 Plaintiff Order Dismissing and Closing Case 5 v. 6 State of Nevada, et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 Plaintiff Dematheus Green brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 10 redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while incarcerated at High Desert State 11 Prison. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. On May 21, 2024, the magistrate judge ordered Green to file his updated 12 address with the court and either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a complete application to 13 proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners by June 20, 2024. ECF No. 7. The deadline expired 14 without an updated address and either payment of the filing fee or an in forma pauperis application 15 from Green, and his mail from the Court is being returned as undeliverable. See ECF No. 8. 16 I. Discussion 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 18 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 19 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an 20 action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 21 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 22 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 23 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether 24 to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, I must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 25 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 26 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 27 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 28 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 2 the court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Green’s claims. The third 3 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 4 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 5 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 6 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 7 the factors favoring dismissal. 8 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to 9 correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. 10 Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 11 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 12 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force 13 of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to 14 disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave 15 to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 16 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 17 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 18 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed without the ability for the 19 Court and the defendants to send Green case-related documents, filings, and orders, the only 20 alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But without an updated address, 21 the likelihood that the second order would even reach Green is low, so issuing a second order will 22 only delay the inevitable and further squander the Court’s finite resources. Setting another 23 deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors 24 dismissal. 25 II. Conclusion 26 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 27 dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Green’s 28 failure to file an updated address in compliance with this court’s May 21, 2024, order. 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No 2 |jother documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Green wishes to pursue his claims, he 3 |lmust file a complaint in a new case, provide the court with his current address, and either pay the 4 |lrequired filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status. 5 Dated: August 5, 2024 J) 6 LZ ‘ 7 tha Cristina D. Silva 8 Ung States District Judge 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28