Barral v. Garrett

Opinion

1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 DUSTIN BARRAL, Case No. 3:23-cv-00155-ART-CSD 3 Plaintiff, ORDER 4 v.

5 TIM GARRETT, et al.,

6 Defendants.

7 Plaintiff Dustin Barral brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 8 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 9 incarcerated. (ECF No. 4.) On July 10, 2023, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file 10 an amended complaint by August 10, 2023. (ECF No. 3 at 7.) The Court warned 11 Plaintiff that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended 12 complaint by that deadline. (Id. at 8.) That deadline expired and Plaintiff did not 13 file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 14 DISCUSSION 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 16 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 17 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 18 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 19 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 20 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 21 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 22 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 23 (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 25 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 26 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 27 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 28 1 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 2 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 3 Cir. 1987)). 4 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 5 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 6 dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 7 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 8 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 9 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 10 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 11 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 13 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 14 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 15 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 16 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 17 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 18 “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted 19 pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as 20 satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 21 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 22 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 23 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 24 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action 25 cannot realistically proceed until and unless Plaintiff files an amended complaint, 26 the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the 27 reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and 28 squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate 1 || that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Plaintiff needs additional 2 || time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening order. Setting 3 || another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So 4 || the fifth factor favors dismissal. 5 || II. CONCLUSION 6 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 7 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 8 || dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to file an amended 9 || complaint in compliance with this Court’s July 10, 2023, order and for failure to 10 || state a claim. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and 11 || close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If 12 || Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 13 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis 14 || (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot. 15 16 DATED THIS day of August 2023. 17 18 ) an 19 Yrs / 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28