Dow v. State of Nevada

Opinion

* * *

ANDRE DOW, Case No. 3:24-cv-00102-MMD-CSD

Plaintiff, ORDER v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Andre Dow brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Lovelock Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1-1.) On May 31, 2024, this Court ordered Dow to either pay the full $405 filing fee for a civil action or file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis by July 1, 2024. (ECF No. 4.) The Court warned Dow that the action could be dismissed if he failed to timely comply. (Id. at 2.) That deadline expired and Dow did not pay the full $405 filing fee, file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Dow’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court must collect filing fees from parties initiating civil actions, and litigation cannot realistically proceed without a party’s compliance with the Court’s orders. The only alternative to dismissal is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. /// 1 Il. CONCLUSION Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Andre Dow’s failure to either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with the Court’s May 31, 2024, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Andre Dow wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the required filing fee or file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. It is further ordered that Dow's motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3- 1) is denied as moot. DATED THIS Day of August 2024. ( □ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE