Scott v. State of Nevada ex rel NDOC ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 JAMES EDWARD SCOTT, III, Case No. 3:23-cv-00301-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA EX REL. NDOC, et 9 al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Plaintiff James Scott brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 13 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Northern 14 Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 8.) On May 15, 2024, this Court ordered Scott to 15 file an amended complaint by June 17, 2024. (ECF No. 7.) The Court warned Scott that 16 the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline. 17 (Id. at 8.) That deadline expired and Scott did not file an amended complaint, move for an 18 extension, or otherwise respond. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 22 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 23 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 24 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 25 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 26 Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 27 whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 28 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 2 of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 3 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 4 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130. 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 6 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Scott’s 7 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 8 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 9 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 10 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 11 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 13 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 14 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 15 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 16 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 17 Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 18 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 19 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically 20 proceed until and unless Scott files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter 21 a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is 22 that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The 23 circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another 24 deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor 25 favors dismissal. 26 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 27 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 28 prejudice based on Scott’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this 1 || Court’s May 15, 2024, order and for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is directed 2 || to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in 3 || this now-closed case. If Scott wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a 4 || new case. 5 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) 6 || is granted. This status doesn’t relieve Scott of his obligation to pay the full $350 filing fee 7 || under the statute; it just means that he can do it in installments. And the full $350 filing 8 || fee remains due and owing even though this case is being dismissed. 9 It is further ordered that the Nevada Department of Corrections must pay to the 10 || Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding □□□□□□□ 11 || deposits to the account of James Scott, #1207166 (in months that the account exceeds 12 || $10) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk is directed to 13 || send a copy of this order to (1) the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office and (2) the 14 || attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections at 15 || formapauperis @doc.nv.gov. 16 DATED THIS 2" Day of July 2024. 18 we MIRANDA M. DU 19 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 3:23-cv-00301

Filed Date: 7/2/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/2/2024