Allen v. Naphcare

Opinion

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 RONALD LEE ALLEN, Case No. 3:22-cv-00046-RCJ-CSD 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v.

6 NAPHCARE, et al.,

7 Defendants.

9 Plaintiff Ronald Lee Allen brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 10 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at the 11 Washoe County Detention Facility. (ECF No. 1-1). On April 27, 2022, this Court ordered 12 Allen to update his address by May 27, 2022. (ECF No. 5). That deadline expired without 13 an updated address from Allen, and his mail from the Court is being returned as 14 undeliverable. (See ECF No. 6). 15 I. DISCUSSION 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 17 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 18 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 19 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 20 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 21 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 22 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 23 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 24 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 25 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 26 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 27 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 28 2 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 4 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Allen’s 5 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 6 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 7 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 8 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 9 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 10 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 11 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 12 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 13 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 14 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 15 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 16 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 17 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 18 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 19 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 20 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 21 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed without 22 the ability for the Court and the defendants to send Allen case-related documents, filings, 23 and orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But 24 without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach Allen 25 is low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the 26 Court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given 27 these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 28 1 || I. CONCLUSION 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 3 || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 4 || prejudice based on Allen’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this 5 || Court’s April 27, 2022, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly 6 || and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Allen 7 || wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and provide the Court 8 || with his current address. 9 10 DATED THIS 14th day of June, 2022. 11 wo vf q UN STAT ISTRIC GE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28