Juacell Duvon Britt v. Washoe County Jail ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 JUACELL DUVON BRITT, Case No. 2:22-cv-02068-GMN-BNW 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE 5 v. 6 WASHOE COUNTY JAIL, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 This action began with a pro se civil-rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a 9 former state prisoner. On October 18, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff Juacell Britt to file his 10 updated contact information with the Court and file a writing stating how he intends to proceed 11 now that this action has been removed from the Court’s Pro Bono Counsel Program. (ECF No. 19). 12 The Court gave Britt until November 18, 2024, to comply. (Id.) That deadline expired without 13 and updated address or written statement by Britt, and he has not otherwise responded to the 14 Court’s order. This is not the first time that the Court has been unable to reach Britt. (See ECF 15 Nos. 17, 18). 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 20 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. 21 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 22 with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack 23 of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action 24 on these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 25 litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 1 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 2 drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 3 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 4 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 5 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Britt’s claims. The third 6 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 7 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. 8 Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring 9 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 10 The fifth factor requires this Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 11 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the need to consider dismissal. Yourish v. Cal. 12 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives 13 before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. 14 Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short 15 of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 16 alternatives.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Because this action cannot realistically proceed 17 without the ability for the Court and the defendants to send Britt case-related documents, filings, 18 and orders, and this litigation cannot progress without Britt’s compliance with the Court’s orders, 19 the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But repeating an ignored 20 order often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. These 21 circumstances do not indicate that this case will be an exception. And without updated contact 22 information, the likelihood that the second order would even reach Britt is low. Setting another 23 deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, the fifth factor favors 24 dismissal. 25 OL CONCLUSION 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 3 || favor of dismissal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED 4 || without prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to file his updated address and a written notice 5 || of intention to proceed in compliance with the Court’s October 18, 2024, order. The Court kindly 6 || directs the Clerk of Court to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. If 7 || Juacell Britt wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case, under a new case 8 || number, provide his updated contact information, and either apply for in forma pauperis status or 9 || pay the required filing fee for that action. 10 11 || DATED: November 20, 2024 ‘jh, 2 ne M.NAVARRO B ATED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 of 3