Cunningham v. Washoe County Sheriff Office ( 2024 )

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 ROBERT VICTOR HONORA Case No. 3:23-cv-658-ART-CSD CUNNINGHAM, 6 ORDER Plaintiff, 7 v. 8 WASHOE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Robert Cunningham brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 12 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while a pre- 13 trial detainee at the Washoe County Detention Facility. (ECF No. 7.) On August 14 15, 2024, this Court ordered Cunningham to file an amended complaint by 15 September 14, 2024. (ECF No. 6.) On September 11, 2024, the Court extended 16 the deadline until November 1, 2024. (ECF No. 10.) The Court warned 17 Cunningham that the action would be dismissed if he failed to file an amended 18 complaint by that deadline. (Id.) That deadline expired and Cunningham did not 19 file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 20 DISCUSSION 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 22 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 23 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 24 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 25 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 26 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 27 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 28 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 2 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 3 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 5 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 6 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 7 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 8 Cir. 1987)). 9 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 10 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 11 dismissal of Cunningham’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to 12 defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 13 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by 14 the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 15 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases 16 on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 17 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 18 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 19 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 20 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 21 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 22 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 23 “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted 24 pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as 25 satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 26 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 27 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 28 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 1 || Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action 2 || cannot realistically proceed until and unless Cunningham files an amended 3 || complaint, the only alternative is to enter a third order setting another deadline. 4 || But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the 5 || inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do 6 || not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Cunningham 7 || needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening 8 || order or the order granting Cunningham’s motion to extend the deadline to file 9 || an amended complaint. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative 10 || given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 11} Il. CONCLUSION 12 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 13 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 14 || dismissed without prejudice based on Cunningham’s failure to file an amended 15 || complaint in compliance with this Court’s August 15, 2024, order and for failure 16 || to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and 17 || close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Robert 18 || Cunningham wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 19 20 DATED THIS 15t# day of November 2024. 21 22 on Apo Waseed 24 ANNER.TRAUM 95 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28