Sashinger v. Logan ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 CRYSTAL M SASHINGER, Case No. 2:24-cv-00886-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 LOGAN, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Plaintiff Matthew Crystal M. Sashinger brings this civil-rights action under 42 13 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that she claims she suffered while 14 incarcerated at Florence McClure Women’s Correctional Center. (ECF No. 8.) On July 15 1, 2024, this Court ordered Sashinger to file an amended complaint by July 31, 2024. 16 (ECF No. 7.) The Court warned Sashinger that the action could be dismissed if she failed 17 to file an amended complaint by that deadline. (Id. at 7.) That deadline expired and 18 Sashinger did not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise 19 respond. 20 I. DISCUSSION 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 22 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 23 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 24 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 25 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 26 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 27 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 28 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 2 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 3 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 4 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 5 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 6 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 8 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Sashinger’s 9 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 10 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 11 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 12 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 13 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 14 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 15 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 16 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 17 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 18 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 19 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 20 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 21 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 22 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 23 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 24 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 25 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until 26 and unless Sashinger files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a 27 second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is 28 that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The 1 || circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint 2 || that Sashinger needs additional time or evidence that she did not receive the □□□□□□□ 3 || screening order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 4 || circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 5 || Ul. CONCLUSION 6 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 7 || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 8 || prejudice based on Sashinger’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with 9 || this Court’s July 1, 2024, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 10 || accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed 11 || case. If Sashinger wishes to pursue her claims, she must file a complaint in a new case. 12 It is further ordered that Sashinger’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 13 || No. 4) is denied as moot. 14 15 DATED THIS 24 day of August 2024. 16 : y 17 18 UNITED} STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28