Moore v. Warden Oliver ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 ALLAN MOORE, Case No. 2:24-cv-00576-RFB-MDC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 WARDEN OLIVER, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Plaintiff Allan Moore brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress 13 constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated. (ECF No. 1-1.) On March 14 27, 2024, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee on or before May 28, 2024. (ECF No. 3.) The Court warned 16 Plaintiff that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete application to 17 proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $405 filing fee for a civil action 18 by that deadline. (Id. at 2.) That deadline expired and Plaintiff did not file a fully complete 19 application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $405 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 20 I. 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 24 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 25 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 26 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 27 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In 28 determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) 2 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 3 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 4 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. 5 U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 6 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 7 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third 8 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 9 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 10 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 11 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 12 the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 14 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 15 v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 16 alternatives before 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) (explaining that “the persuasive 18 force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives 19 prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting 20 of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been 21 “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 22 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 23 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 24 unless Plaintiff either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the 25 $405 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another 26 deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and 27 squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will 28 be an exception: there is no hint that Plaintiff needs additional time or evidence that he did not 1 || receive the Court’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 2 || circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 3 |} Il. CONCLUSION 4 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 5 || favor of dismissal. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 7 || Plaintiffs failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full 8 || $405 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s March 27, 2024, order. The Clerk of Court is Q || directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in 10 || this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new 11 || case. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may move to reopen this case and vacate the 13 || judgment by filing a motion for reconsideration of this order. In this motion, the Plaintiff is 14 || required to explain what circumstances delayed him from paying the filing fee or filing the 15 || application to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1. If the 16 || Court finds there to be good cause or a reasonable explanation therein, the Court will reopen the 17 || case and vacate the judgment. 18 DATED: June 4, 2024 19 AS 21 RICHARD F.BOULWARE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28