Williams v. Nevada Attorney General ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 THOMAS L. WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00510-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 JOEY KEATON, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Plaintiff Thomas Williams brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 13 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while housed at Washoe 14 County Detention Center. (ECF No. 6.) On October 1, 2024, this Court ordered Williams 15 to file an amended complaint by October 30, 2024. (ECF No. 8.) The Court warned 16 Williams this action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that 17 deadline. (Id. at 10.) That deadline expired and Williams did not file an amended 18 complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 22 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 23 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 24 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 25 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 26 Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 27 whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 28 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 2 of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 3 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 4 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 6 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Williams’s 7 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 8 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 9 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 10 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 11 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 13 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 14 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 15 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 16 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 17 Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 18 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 19 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically 20 proceed until Williams files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a 21 second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that 22 it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The 23 circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another 24 deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor 25 favors dismissal. 26 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 27 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 28 prejudice based on Thomas Williams’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance 1 || with this Court’s October 1, 2024, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 2 || accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed 3 || case. If Williams wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and 4 || either pay the require filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status. 5 It is further ordered that Williams’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 6 || No. 5) is granted. This status does not relieve Williams of the obligation to pay the full 7 || $350 filing fee, it just means that he can pay it in installments from his jail trust account. 8 || And the full filing fee remains due and owing even though this action is being dismissed. 9 It is further ordered that the Washoe County Sheriff's Office must pay to the Clerk 10 || of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month’s 11 || deposits to the account of Thomas Williams, #2307321 in months that the account 12 || exceeds $10) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk is 13 || directed to send a copy of this order to (1) the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office and 14 || (2) the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the Washoe County Detention Facility at 15 || 911 Parr Blvd., Reno, NV 89512. 16 DATED THIS 20" Day of November 2024. 18 MIRANDA M. DU 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28