Choyce v. Clowers ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Jahiem Choyce, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01657-JAD-DJA 4 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and 5 v. Recommendation and Dismissing Action 6 Shannon Clowers, Steven Altig, and Stefany [ECF No. 10] Miley, 7 Defendants 8 9 Plaintiff Jahiem Choyce has failed to comply with every order in this case. His case was 10 screened and dismissed with leave to amend, and he was ordered to file an amended complaint 11 by January 19, 2024.1 He did nothing. Choyce was ordered to show cause by May 2, 2024, why 12 the court should not recommend dismissal of his case for failing to file an amended complaint by 13 the court-ordered deadline.2 He did nothing. And when his court mail started getting returned to 14 sender, the court ordered Choyce to update his address as required by the local rules by June 20, 15 2024.3 Again, he did nothing. So I dismiss this case without prejudice for failing to comply 16 with court orders. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 18 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.4 A 19 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local 20 21 1 ECF No. 7. 22 2 ECF No. 9. 23 3 ECF No. 12. 4 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 1 rules.5 In determining whether to dismiss an action on this ground, the court must consider: (1) 2 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 3 docket; (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.6 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 the plaintiff’s claims. The 7 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 8 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 9 action.7 The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is 10 greatly outweighed by 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.8 Courts 13 “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 14 explore possible and meaningful alternatives.”9 Because this case cannot proceed without an 15 16 5 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 17 comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 18 6 In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130. 19 7 See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 20 8 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); 21 accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic 22 alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to 23 comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 9 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 1} operative complaint on file and the plaintiff’s compliance with court orders, the only alternative to enter yet another order setting another deadline. But issuing repeat orders will only delay the inevitable and further squander the court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a 4! meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 5 Having thoroughly weighed these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 6] dismissal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and 7\| recommendation [ECF No. 10] is ADOPTED in its entirety. This case is DISMISSED 8|| without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY and CLOSE THIS CASE. 10 ( eA 11 U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey Dated: June 24, 2024 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23