Demondray D. Mayo v. State of Nevada, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00567
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 DEMONDRAY D. MAYO, Case No. 3:24-cv-00567-ART-CSD 3 Plaintiff, ORDER 4 v.

5 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

6 Defendants.

7 8 Plaintiff Demondray D. Mayo brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 9 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 10 confined at Northern Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 8.) In October 2025, 11 Plaintiff updated his address to a residential address. (ECF No. 16.) In November 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 December 14 17, 2025. (ECF No. 20.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the action would be 15 subject to dismissal without prejudice if he failed to timely comply. (Id.) That 16 deadline expired, and Plaintiff has not paid the full filing fee, filed a non-prisoner 17 IFP application, or otherwise responded. 18 DISCUSSION 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 20 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 21 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 22 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 23 failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 24 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with 25 local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 26 U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for 27 1 failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss an action 2 on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 3 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) 4 the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition 5 of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See 6 In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) 7 (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 8 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 9 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 10 dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 11 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 12 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 13 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 14 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 15 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 16 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 17 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 18 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 19 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 20 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 21 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 22 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 23 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 24 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this Court cannot operate without 25 collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without Plaintiff’s 26 compliance with the Court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter another order 27 setting another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the 1 || inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 2 || do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline is 3 || not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors 4 || 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 address the matter of 9 || the filing fee in compliance with the Court’s order. The Clerk of Court is kindly 10 || directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. If Plaintiff wishes to 11 || pursue his claims, he must file a complaint and address the matter of the filing 12 || fee in a new case. 13 DATED: January 7, 2026. 14

16 ANNERTRAUM 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28