Acuna-Martinez v. C.O.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JOVANNY ACUNA-MARTINEZ, Case No. 2:23-cv-01390-ART-MDC

4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING v. AND CLOSING CASE 5 MASON, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Jovanny Acuna-Martinez brings this civil-rights action under 42 9 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while 10 incarcerated. (ECF No. 18). Because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, this Court 11 ordered Plaintiff to either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a complete application 12 to proceed in forma pauperis for non-inmates by March 12, 2025, to proceed with 13 this case. (ECF No. 23 at 7-8). That deadline expired without any response from 14 Plaintiff. 15 DISCUSSION 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 17 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 18 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 19 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 20 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 21 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 22 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 23 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 24 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 25 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 26 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 27 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 1 drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 2 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 4 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 5 dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 6 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 7 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 8 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 9 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 10 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 11 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 12 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 13 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 14 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 15 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 16 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 17 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 18 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 19 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this Court cannot operate without 20 collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without Plaintiff’s 21 compliance with the Court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order 22 setting another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the 23 inevitable and further squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances 24 here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline 25 is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor 26 favors dismissal. 27 1 || II. CONCLUSION 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 3 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 4 || dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to address the matter of 5 || the filing fee in compliance with the Court’s order. The Clerk of Court is directed 6 || to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be 7 || filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file 8 || complaint in a new case and address the matter of the filing fee. 9 10 DATED: March 28, 2025. 11 12 on Arve Nossa 14 ANNER.TRAUM is UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28