Thomas v. William ( 2024 )

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Deshawn L. Thomas, Case No. 2:24-cv-00506-CDS-MDC 5 Plaintiff Order Dismissing and Closing Case v. 6 7 Ken William, et al., 8 Defendants 9 10 Plaintiff Deshawn L. Thomas brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 11 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated High Desert State 12 Prison. ECF No. 1-1. On April 15, 2024, I ordered Thomas to file an amended complaint by June 17, 13 2024. ECF No. 3 at 7. I warned Thomas that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an 14 amended complaint by that deadline. Id. at 7–8. That deadline expired, and Thomas did not file an 15 amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 16 I. Discussion 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. 19 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an 20 action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 21 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 22 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 23 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether 24 to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 25 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 26 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 27 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 28 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 2 the court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissing Thomas’s claims. The 3 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 4 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 5 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 6 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is 7 greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 8 The fifth factor requires the court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be 9 used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. See 10 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 11 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 12 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force 13 of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to 14 disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave 15 to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 16 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 17 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 18 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and unless Thomas files 19 an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. 20 But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and 21 squanders the court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will 22 be an exception: there is no hint that Thomas needs additional time or evidence that he did not 23 receive my screening order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 24 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 25 II. Conclusion 26 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 27 dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 28 Thomas’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with my April 15, 2024, order. 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No 2 |jother documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Thomas wishes to pursue his claims, he 3 ||must file a complaint in a new case. 4 It is further ordered that Thomas’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] 5 |jand his motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction [ECF No. 1-2] are 6 ||denied as moot. 7 Dated: July 8, 2024 /, / La — 9 Cristina). Silva Uni tates District Judge 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28