Allison v. Clark County Detention Center

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 RONALD J. ALLISON, Case No. 2:21-cv-01226-GMN-NJK

4 Plaintiff ORDER

5 v.

6 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,

7 Defendant

8 9 On July 7, 2021, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a fully complete 10 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before 11 September 7, 2021. (ECF No. 3). On July 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed an incomplete in forma 12 pauperis application. (ECF No. 4). The September 7, 2021 deadline has now expired, 13 and Plaintiff has not filed a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid 14 the full $402 filing fee. 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 16 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 17 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 18 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 19 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 20 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 21 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 22 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 23 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 24 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 25 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 26 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 27 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 28 local rules). 1 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 2 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 3 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 5 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 6 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 7 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 8 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 9 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 10 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 11 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 12 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 13 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 14 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 15 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 16 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 17 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 18 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a fully complete application to 19 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before September 7, 2021 20 expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file … a fully 21 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full 22 $402 filing fee for a civil action on or before September 7, 2021, this case will be subject 23 to dismissal without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new 24 case number, when Plaintiff … has all three documents needed to file a complete 25 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the the full $402 filing fee.” (ECF No. 3 26 at 3). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from 27 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file a fully complete application to proceed in 28 forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before September 7, 2021. 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 2 based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis 3 or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated July 7, 2021. 4 (ECF No. 3). 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's pending motion, ECF No. 4, is denied 6 as moot. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter 8 judgment accordingly. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 9 DATED: S_e_p_t_._ _2_3_, _2_0_2_1__ ___ 10 GLORIA M. NAVARRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11

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