Owens v. Federal Bureau of Investigation ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 RICKIE JAMES OWENS, Case No. 2:24-cv-01517-BNW 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 11 On September 11, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 12 pauperis and screened his complaint. ECF No. 5. Although the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims, 13 it allowed Plaintiff leave to amend and gave him until October 11, 2024 to file an amended 14 complaint. Id. Plaintiff failed to comply with the deadline and to date has not filed an amended 15 complaint. As a result, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice. 16 The law permits a district court to dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to comply 17 with a court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 18 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint). In determining whether to 19 dismiss an action on this ground, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 20 resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the 21 defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the 22 availability of less-drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 23 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 24 1987)). 25 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 26 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third 27 factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 1 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 2 || factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits— weighs against dismissal. 3 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less-drastic alternatives can be used 4 || to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. Courts 5 || “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 6 || explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 7 || Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed without an operative complaint, the only 8 || alternative is to enter another order setting another deadline. The circumstances here do not 9 || indicate that Plaintiff needs additional time. Therefore, setting another deadline is not a 10 || meaningful alternative. So, the fifth factor favors dismissal. 11 In balance, the factors above favor a recommendation of dismissal. See Hernandez v. City 12 || of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that dismissal is proper where at least four 13 || factors support dismissal or where at least three factors “strongly” support dismissal). 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for 15 || failure to comply with the Court’s amended complaint deadline. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 17 18 DATED: October 16, 2024 19 Li gan bes WERE BRENDA WEKSLER 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28