Anthony C. Hernandez v. Ms. R.H.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00343
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 ANOTHONY C. HERNANDEZ, Case No. 3:24-cv-00343-ART-CLB 3 Plaintiff, ORDER 4 v.

5 MS. R.H.,

6 Defendant.

7 8 Plaintiff Anthony C. Hernandez brings this civil-rights action under 42 9 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 10 confined at Washoe County Detention Center. (ECF No. 13; ECF No. 18.) In April 11 2025, Plaintiff updated his address to a residential address. (ECF No. 17.) In July 12 2025, this Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the full $405 filing fee or file an 13 application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) for non-prisoners by August 21, 14 2025. (ECF No. 20.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the action would be subject 15 to dismissal without prejudice if he failed to timely comply. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff 16 then updated his address to a new residential address (ECF No. 21), and the 17 Court re-sent the July 2025 order to his updated address. More than 30 days 18 have passed since the Court re-sent the July 2025 order to Plaintiff’s most recent 19 address, and since that time, he has not paid the full filing fee, filed a non- 20 prisoner IFP application, or otherwise responded. 21 DISCUSSION 22 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 23 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 24 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 25 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 26 failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 27 1 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with 2 local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 3 U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for 4 failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss an action 5 on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 6 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) 7 the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition 8 of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See 9 In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) 10 (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 11 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 12 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 13 dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 14 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 15 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 16 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 17 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 18 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 19 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 20 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 21 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 22 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 23 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 24 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 25 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 26 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 27 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this Court cannot operate without 1 || collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without Plaintiffs 2 || compliance with the Court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter another order 3 || setting another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the 4 || inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 5 || do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline is 6 || not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors 7 || dismissal. 8 || II. CONCLUSION 9 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 10 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 11 || dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to address the matter of 12 || the filing fee in compliance with the Court’s order. The Clerk of Court is kindly 13 || directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents 14 || may be filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he 15 || must file a complaint and address the matter of the filing fee in a new case. 16 DATED: October 28, 2025. 17 18 Ana ‘ [lostd □□ 19 ANNE R. TRAUM 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28