Grant v. Gaston ( 2024 )

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 RODRICK D. GRANT, Case No. 2:24-cv-01431-GMN-BNW 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v. 6 TYLER GASTON, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Plaintiff Rodrick D. Grant brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 10 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated Clark 11 County Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1.) On August 8, 2024, this Court ordered Grant 12 to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 filing 13 fee on or before October 7, 2024. (ECF No. 3.) The Court warned Grant that the action 14 could be dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $405 filing fee for a civil action by that 16 deadline. (Id. at 2.) That deadline expired and Grant did not file a fully complete 17 application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $405 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 18 I. DISCUSSION 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) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 27 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 28 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 2 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 v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 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 Grant’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) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 18 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 19 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 20 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 21 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 22 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 23 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until 24 and unless Grant either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or 25 pays the $405 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order 26 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 27 delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 28 do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Grant needs 1 || additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s order. Setting another 2 || deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor 3 || favors dismissal. || Il. CONCLUSION 5 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 6 || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 7 || prejudice based on Grant's failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 8 || pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s August 8, 2024, 9 || order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 10 || No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Grant wishes to pursue his 11 claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 12 13 DATED THIS 16 day of October 2024. Gloria M/Navarro, Judge 16 United sips District Court 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28