Jefferson v. Fajota ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 BRANDON M. JEFFERSON, Case No. 3:23-cv-00649-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 VENUS FAJOTA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Plaintiff Brandon M. Jefferson brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 13 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at 14 Northern Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 5.) On September 3, 2024, this Court 15 ordered Jefferson to file an amended complaint by October 3, 2024. (ECF No. 4.) The 16 Court warned Jefferson that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended 17 complaint by that deadline. (Id. at 7.) That deadline expired and Jefferson did not file an 18 amended 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 21 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 22 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 23 failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 24 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring 25 pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 26 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In 27 determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must 28 consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need 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, 1226 (9th 4 Cir. 2006) (quoting 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 Jefferson’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 and 24 unless Jefferson files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second 25 order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often 26 only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances 27 here do not indicate that this case will be an exception because there is no hint that 28 Jefferson needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening 1 || order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. 2 || Therefore, the fifth factor favors dismissal. 3 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 4 || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 5 || prejudice based on Jefferson’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with 6 || this Court's order from September 3, 2024. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter 7 || judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now- 8 || closed case. If Jefferson wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a 9 || new case. 10 It is further ordered that Jefferson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 11 |} No. 1) is denied as moot. 12 DATED THIS 21* Day of October 2024. 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28