Allison v. Clark County Detention Center Medical Psychiatric Dept

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 17, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01707
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 RONALD J. ALLISON, Case No. 2:20-cv-01707-GMN-NJK

10 Plaintiff, v. 11

12 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER MEDICAL PSYCHIATRIC DEPT, et. al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 16 1983. On April 12, 2021, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file his updated 17 address with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 6.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded to 18 the Court’s order. 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, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 23 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 24 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 25 with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal 26 for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 27 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring 1 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson 2 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and 3 failure to comply with local rules). 4 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 5 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 6 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 7 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 8 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 9 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 10 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 11 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 12 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 13 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs 14 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See 15 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy 16 favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor 17 of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 18 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 19 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 20 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the 21 Court within thirty days expressly warned Plaintiff that, if he failed to timely comply with 22 the order, his case would be subject to dismissal. (ECF No. 6.) Thus, Plaintiff had 23 adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s 24 order to file his updated address within thirty (30) days. 25 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 26 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s April 12, 2021 27 order. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue any of his claims, he must file a complaint in a new 1 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) 2 is denied as moot. 3 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and 4 close this case. No other documents shall be filed in this closed case. 5 DATED THIS 1 7 day of M a y 2021. 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27