Duncan v. Olivas

Opinion

8 CARL E. DUNCAN, Case No. 3:17-CV-00460-RCJ-WGC 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v.

11 RAMON OLIVAS, et al., Defendants. 12 13 On February 10, 2021, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file his updated 14 address with this Court on or before March 12, 2021. (ECF No. 87). The deadline has now 15 expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 16 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 17 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 18 dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey 19 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th 20 Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 21 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 22 amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 23 dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 24 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal 25 for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 26 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 27 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 2 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 3 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; 4 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 6 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 7 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 10 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th 11 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is 42\|| greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning 43 to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the 44 “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132- 15 33: Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address 16 with the Court on or before March 12, 2021, expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, 17 if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, this Court will dismiss this case with prejudice.” 18 (ECF No. 87 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 49 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address by March 12, 2021.

20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s February 10, a" 2021, order. 22 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment 23 accordingly. 24 25 DATED This 22nd day of March, 2021. 26 z 27 {GBERT C. JGHEES □□ UNITED STA/ES DISTRICT JUDGE 28