Allison v. Clark County Detention Center

Opinion

1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 RONALD J. ALLISON, Case No. 2:22-cv-00873-ART-BNW 3 Plaintiff, ORDER 4 v.

5 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Ronald Allison brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 9 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 10 detained at Clark County Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1.) On June 15, 2022, 11 this Court ordered Allison to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 12 pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before August 14, 2022. (ECF No. 3.) 13 The Court warned Allison that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a 14 fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents 15 or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. (Id. at 2-3.) That 16 deadline expired and Allison did not file a fully complete application to proceed 17 in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee. Allison filed a letter in which he 18 appears to allege that the clerks participated in an act of organized crime by 19 denying his motions. (ECF No. 4.) The Court notes that no motions have been 20 filed in this case, and the Court’s order simply instructed Allison to file an 21 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $402 filing fee, which is 22 required of everyone bringing a civil case in this court. 23 I. DISCUSSION 24 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 25 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 26 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 27 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 28 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 1 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 2 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 3 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 4 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 5 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 6 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 8 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 9 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 10 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 11 Cir. 1987)). 12 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 13 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 14 dismissal of Allison’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also 15 weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 16 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 17 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 18 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 19 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 20 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 21 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 22 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 23 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 24 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 25 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 26 “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted 27 pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as 28 satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 1 || with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply|,|” have been “eroded” by 2 || Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 3 || dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 4 || Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action 5 || cannot realistically proceed until and unless Allison either files a fully complete 6 || application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the $402 filing fee for a civil 7 || action, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. 8 || But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the 9 || inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do 10 || not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Allison needs 11 || additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s order. To the 12 || contrary, it appears that Allison received the Court’s order and made a deliberate 13 || decision not to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Setting another 14 || deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth 15 || factor favors dismissal. 16 || IL. CONCLUSION 17 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 18 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 19 || dismissed without prejudice based on Allison’s failure to file a fully complete 20 || application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in 21 || compliance with this Court’s June 15, 2022, order. The Clerk of Court is directed 22 || to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be 23 || filed in this now-closed case. If Allison wishes to pursue his claims, he must file 24 || a complaint in a new case. 25 26 DATED THIS 224 day of September 2022. Qe Aros Wasted ANNE R. TRAUM 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE