Gonzales v. Sgt. Jose Navarrette, SDCC ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 YADIR GONZALES, Case No. 2:24-cv-00454-RFB-MDC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 SGT. JOSE NAVARRETTE, SDCC, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Yadir Gonzales brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress 12 constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Southern Desert 13 Correctional Center. On March 21, 2024, this Court ordered Gonzales to file a fully complete 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee on or before May 20, 2024. 15 The Court warned Gonzales that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $405 filing fee 17 for a civil action by that deadline. That deadline expired and Gonzales did not file a fully complete 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $405 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 20 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 21 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 22 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 23 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 24 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 25 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In 26 determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) 27 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 28 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 2 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. 3 U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 4 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 5 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Gonzales’s claims. The third 6 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 7 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 8 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 9 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 10 the factors favoring dismissal. 11 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 12 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 13 v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 14 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 15 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive 16 force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives 17 prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting 18 of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been 19 “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 20 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 21 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). 22 Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and unless Gonzales either files a 23 fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the $405 filing fee for a civil 24 action, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of 25 repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s 26 finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there 27 is no hint that Gonzales needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s order. 28 1 || Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth 2 || factor favors dismissal. 3 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 4 || favor of dismissal. 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 6 || Gonzales’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full 7 || $405 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s March 21, 2024, order. The Clerk of Court is 8 || directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in 9 || this now-closed case. If Gonzales wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new 10 || case. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may move to reopen this case and vacate the 12 || judgment by filing a motion for reconsideration of this order. In this motion, the Plaintiff is 13 || required to explain what circumstances delayed him from paying the filing fee or filing the 14 || application to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1. If the Court 15 || finds there to be good cause or a reasonable explanation therein, the Court will reopen the case 16 || and vacate the judgment. 17 18 DATED: June 20, 2024 AS” 20 □□□□ RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28