Kurpiel v. Cook ( 2024 )

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 JUSTIN ANTHONY KURPIEL, Case No. 2:24-cv-00524-ART-NJK 4 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 5 HEATHER COOK, 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Justin Kurpiel brings this civil-rights action under 9 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered 10 while incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. (ECF No. 11). On August 19, 11 2024, this Court ordered Kurpiel to file an amended complaint by September 18, 12 2024. (ECF No. 10). The Court warned Kurpiel that the action could be dismissed 13 if he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline. (Id. at 9). That deadline 14 expired and Kurpiel did not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or 15 otherwise respond. 16 DISCUSSION 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 18 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 19 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 20 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 21 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 22 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 23 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 24 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 25 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 26 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 27 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 28 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 2 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 3 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 4 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 5 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 6 dismissal of Kurpiel’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 7 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 8 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 9 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 10 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 11 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 13 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 14 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 15 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 16 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 17 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 18 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 19 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 20 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 21 until and unless Kurpiel files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to 22 enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an 23 ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s 24 finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an 25 exception. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 26 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 27 // 28 // 1. 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 Justin Kurpiel’s failure to file an amended 5 || complaint in compliance with this Court’s August 19, 2024, order, and for failure 6 || to state a claim for relief. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 7 || accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now- 8 || closed case. If Kurpiel wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a 9 || new case. 10 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 11 || No. 3) is denied at moot. 12 13 DATED THIS 24th day of October 2024. 14 15 16 Ana jlosed Jd 17 ANNE R. TRAUM 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28