Curtis v. State of Nevada

Opinion

5 * * *

6 MICHAEL CURTIS, Case No. 2:21-cv-01932-GMN-EJY

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA, 9 Defendant. 10

11 12 On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff Michael Curtis filed an emergency motion for 13 preliminary injunction and a notice of motion to redress constitutional violations that he 14 claims he suffered while incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. (ECF No. 3.) On 15 October 22, 2021, this Court ordered Plaintiff Michael Curtis to file a complaint and a fully 16 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or 17 before December 20, 2021. (ECF No. 3.) The Court warned Plaintiff Michael Curtis that 18 the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a complaint and a fully complete 19 application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402 20 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. (Id. at 3.) That deadline expired and Plaintiff 21 Michael Curtis did not file a complaint, a fully complete application to proceed in forma 22 pauperis, pay the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 24 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 25 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 26 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 27 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 28 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 2 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 3 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 4 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 5 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 6 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 7 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 8 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 9 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 10 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 11 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff 12 Michael Curtis' claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in 13 favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 14 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See 15 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public 16 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors 17 favoring dismissal. 18 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 19 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 20 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 21 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 22 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 23 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 24 “implicitly accepted pursuit of last drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 25 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 26 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 27 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 28 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 2 unless Plaintiff Michael Curtis files a complaint and either files a fully complete application 3 to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only 4 alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating 5 an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite 6 resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: 7 there is no hint that Plaintiff Michael Curtis needs additional time or evidence that he did 8 not receive the Court’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative 9 given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 11 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 12 weigh in favor of dismissal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed 13 without prejudice based on Plaintiff Michael Curtis' failure to file a complaint and a fully 14 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in 15 compliance with this Court’s October 22, 2021, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to 16 enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this 17 now-closed case. If Michael Curtis wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint 18 in a new case. 19 January 5, 2022 20 DATED: ________________

22 ______________________________ GLORIA M. NAVARRO 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28