Finley v. Officer Gray ( 2024 )

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Robert Lee Finley, Case No. 2:23-cv-01706-CDS-DJA 5 Plaintiff Order Dismissing and Closing Case 6 v. 7 Officer Gray, et al., 8 Defendants 9 10 Plaintiff Robert Lee Finley brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 11 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at the Clark 12 County Detention Center. ECF No. 1-1. On June 7, 2024, the magistrate judge ordered Finley to 13 update his address by July 8, 2024. ECF No. 3. That deadline expired without an updated address 14 from Finley, and his mail from the Court is being returned as undeliverable. See ECF No. 4. 15 I. Discussion 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. 18 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an 19 action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 20 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 21 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 22 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 23 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 24 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 25 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 26 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 27 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone., 833 F.2d at 130). 28 2 the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Finley’s claims. Finley 3 failed to update his address as ordered by the court, and failed to comply with the local rules 4 which require litigants to keep their address updated. See Nevada Local Rule of Practice IA 3-1 5 (requiring a “pro se party must immediately file with the court written notification of any change 6 of mailing address, email address, telephone number, or facsimile number.). The third factor, risk 7 of 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 prosecuting 9 an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public 10 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring 11 dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to 13 correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. 14 Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 15 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 16 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force 17 of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to 18 disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave 19 to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 20 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 21 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 22 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed without the ability for the 23 Court and the defendants to send Finley case-related documents, filings, and orders, the only 24 alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But without an updated address, 25 the likelihood that the second order would even reach Finley is low, so issuing a second order will 26 only delay the inevitable and further squander the Court’s finite resources. Setting another 27 deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors 28 dismissal. Conclusion 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 3 || dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Finley’s 4 failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s June 7, 2024, order. 5 It is further ordered that Finley’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] is 6 ||denied as moot. 7 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No 8 |fother documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Finley wishes to pursue his claims, he 9 |lmust file a complaint in a new case and provide the Court with-his current address. 10 Dated: July 22, 2024 /, / ll LZ 12 Cristina < iS ype District Judge / 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28