Jackson v. Clark County Detention Center ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 TAIJAH JACKSON, Case No. 2:23-cv-01796-GMN-MDC 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING 5 vs. CASE 6 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, 7 Defendant. 8 Pro se plaintiff Taijah Jackson brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 9 redress constitutional violations that allegedly happened while he was in custody at Clark County 10 Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1). On August 2, 2024, this Court ordered Jackson to file his 11 updated address and either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a fully complete application to 12 proceed in forma pauperis by September 2, 2024. (ECF No. 5). The Court warned Jackson that 13 this action could be subject to dismissal without prejudice if he failed to timely comply. (Id. at 1). 14 That deadline expired and Jackson has not filed an updated address and either paid the filing fee 15 or filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, moved for an extension, or otherwise 16 responded. And Jackson’s mail from the Court has been returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 6). 17 I. DISCUSSION 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 19 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 20 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 21 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 22 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 23 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 24 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In 25 determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 1 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 2 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 3 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 4 Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 6 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Jackson’s claims. The third 7 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 8 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 9 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 10 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 11 the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 13 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 14 v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 15 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 16 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every 17 sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and 18 meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because 19 this Court cannot operate without collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without 20 the ability to send Jackson case-related documents, the only alternative is to enter a second order 21 setting another deadline. But without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order 22 would even reach Jackson is low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and 23 further squander the Court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 24 alternative given these circumstances. So, the fifth factor favors dismissal. Having thoroughly 25 considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of dismissal. 1) OL. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on 3 || Taijah Jackson’s failure to file an updated address and either pay the full $405 filing fee or file an 4 || application to proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with this Court’s August 2, 2024, order. 5 The Court kindly directs the Clerk of the Court to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and 6 || CLOSE THIS CASE. 7 It is further ordered that no other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Tatjah 8 || Jackson wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case, provide the Court his 9 || current address, and either pay the required filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status. 10 DATED this 25 day of September _, 2024. 1] D Gloria varro, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2] 22 23 24 25 Page 3 of 3