Coleman v. Najera

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MATTHEW A. COLEMAN, Case 2:23-cv-00096-MMD-VCF

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 GABRIEL NAJERA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Matthew A. Coleman brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 13 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated 14 at Southern Desert Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1-1.) On January 26, 2023, the Court 15 ordered Coleman to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 16 the full $402 filing fee on or before March 27, 2023. (ECF No. 3.) The Court warned 17 Coleman that the action could be dismissed if he failed to timely comply with the order. 18 (Id. at 2.) That deadline expired and Coleman did not apply to proceed in forma pauperis, 19 pay the required filing fee, or otherwise respond. 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 21 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 22 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 23 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or 24 comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 25 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep 26 court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 27 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss an 28 action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in the 2 of prejudice to Defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 3 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 4 Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 6 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Coleman’s 7 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 8 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 9 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 10 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 11 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 13 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 14 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 15 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 16 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 17 Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 18 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 19 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because the Court cannot operate without 20 collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without a plaintiff’s compliance 21 with court orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. 22 But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and 23 squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this 24 case will be an exception because there is no showing that Coleman needs additional 25 time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s order. Setting a second deadline is 26 not a meaningful alternative in these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 27 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 28 weigh in favor of dismissal. 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 2 || Coleman’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 3 || the full $402 filing fee in compliance with the Court’s January 26, 2023, order. 4 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 5 || No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Coleman wishes to pursue 6 || his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 7 DATED THIS 11* Day of April 2023. 8 o> _

10 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28