Williams v. State of Nevada ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Kendrick L. Williams, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00858-APG-MDC 4 Petitioner Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice 5 v. [ECF No. 5] 6 State of Nevada, et al., 7 Respondents 8 Pro se Petitioner Kendrick L. Williams, a Nevada prisoner, initiated this case by 9 submitting a petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1-1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On 10 August 21, 2024, I ordered Williams to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed 11 without prejudice for failure to exhaust his claims in state court. ECF No. 5. I instructed 12 Williams to file a “Response to Order to Show Cause” in writing or, in the alternative, to file a 13 motion for stay and abeyance, within 30 days and warned that his failure to timely and fully 14 comply with the order would result in a dismissal of this action without prejudice and without 15 further advance notice. Id. at 4. However, Williams did not comply with the order by either 16 filing a response to the order to show cause or a motion for stay and abeyance, and the 30-day 17 deadline has expired. 18 To date, Williams has not filed a response to the order to show cause or taken any action 19 to prosecute this case. 20 Discussion 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 22 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 23 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 1 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 2 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 3 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. 4 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 5 order). In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, I must consider: (1) 6 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 7 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 8 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 9 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone 10 v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 11 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 12 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of 13 prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises 14 from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 15 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 16 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 17 the factors favoring dismissal. 18 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to 19 correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 20 v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 21 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 22 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive 23 force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives 1 prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial 2 granting of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have 3 been “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 4 finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 5 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because litigation cannot progress without 6 Williams’s compliance with court orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 7 another deadline. But the reality of repeating an order is that it often only delays the inevitable 8 and squanders the court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case 9 will be an exception. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 10 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 11 Conclusion 12 I THEREFORE ORDER: 13 1. Petitioner Kendrick Williams’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-1) is 14 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based his on failure to comply with the Court’s 15 Order (ECF No. 5). 16 2. Williams is denied a certificate of appealability, as jurists of reason would not find 17 dismissal of the petition for the reasons stated herein to be debatable or wrong. 18 3. Under to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Clerk of Court is 19 directed to add Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford as counsel for respondents and 20 informally serve the Nevada Attorney General by directing a notice of electronic filing of 21 this order to his office. No response is required from respondents other than to respond 22 to any orders of a reviewing court. 23 /// ] 4. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter final judgment accordingly and close this 2 case. 3 DATED this 22nd day of October, 2024. 2 Gz > ANDREW P. GORDON 6 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23