Higa v. State of Nevada ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 CHRISTOPHER HIGA, Case No. 3:24-cv-00091-ART-CLB 6 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Plaintiff Christopher Higa brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 11 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 12 incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1-1). On 13 September 25, 2024, this Court ordered Higa to file his updated address and 14 either pay the $405 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis 15 for non-inmates by October 24, 2024. (ECF No. 5). That deadline expired without 16 an updated address and either payment of the filing fee or an in forma pauperis 17 application from Higa, and his mail from the Court is being returned as 18 undeliverable. (ECF No. 6). 19 DISCUSSION 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 21 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 22 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 23 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 24 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 25 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 26 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 27 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 28 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 2 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 3 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 4 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 5 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 6 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 8 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 9 dismissal of Higa’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also 10 weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 11 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 12 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 13 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 14 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 15 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 16 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 17 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 18 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 19 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 20 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 21 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 22 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 23 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). This Court cannot operate without collecting 24 reasonable fees from parties, and litigation cannot realistically proceed without 25 the ability for the Court and defendants to send Higa case-related documents. 26 The only alternative to dismissal here is issuing a second order setting another 27 deadline. But without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order 28 would even reach Higa is low. Issuing a second order is not a meaningful 1 || alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. Il. CONCLUSION 3 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 4 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 5 || dismissed without prejudice based on Christopher Higa’s failure to file an 6 || updated address and either pay the filing fee or file a new application to proceed 7 || in forma pauperis in compliance with this Court’s September 25, 2024, order. The 8 || Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No 9 || other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Christopher Higa wishes 10 || to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case, provide the Court 11 || with his current address, and either pay the filing fee or apply for pauper status. 12 13 Dated this 31st day of October 2024. 14 15 A a jad jb 16 ANNE R. TRAUM 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28