Combs v. Oliver ( 2024 )

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 MATTHEW COMBS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00168-ART-EJY 4 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 5 OLIVER, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Matthew Combs brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 9 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 10 incarcerated at Southern Desert Correctional Center. (ECF No. 7). On August 27, 11 2024, this Court ordered Combs to file an amended complaint by September 26, 12 2024, and cautioned that he could not pursue habeas claims in this civil-rights 13 action. (ECF No. 6). The Court also warned Combs this action could be dismissed 14 if he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline. (Id. at 11). That 15 deadline expired and Combs did not file an amended complaint, move for an 16 extension, or otherwise respond. 17 DISCUSSION 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 19 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 20 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 21 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 22 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 23 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 24 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 25 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 26 (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 28 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 2 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 3 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 4 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 6 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 7 dismissal of Combs’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 8 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 9 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 10 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 11 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 12 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 14 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 15 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 16 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 17 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 18 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 19 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 20 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 21 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 22 until and unless Combs files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to 23 enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an 24 ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s 25 finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an 26 exception. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 27 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 28 1 || II. CONCLUSION 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 3 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 4 || dismissed without prejudice based on Matthew Combs’s failure to file an 5 || amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s August 27, 2024, order. The 6 || Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No 7 || other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Combs wishes to pursue 8 || his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 9 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 10 || No. 5) is denied as moot. 11 12 DATED THIS 17+» day of October 2024. 13 14 een Fre Nowsat 16 ANNER.TRAUM 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28