Edward A. Turner v. Nevada Department of Corrections, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02253
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 EDWARD A. TURNER, Case No. 2:25-cv-02253-GMN-DJA

4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 5 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF 6 CORRECTIONS, et al.,

7 Defendants.

8 Plaintiff Edward A. Turner brings this civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 9 redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while incarcerated. On November 19, 10 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an updated address with the Court on or before December 11 19, 2025. (ECF No. 3). That deadline expired without any response by Plaintiff and his mail from 12 the Court is being returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 4). 13 I. DISCUSSION 14 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 15 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 16 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 17 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 18 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 19 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 20 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In 21 determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 22 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 23 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 24 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 25 Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 1 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 2 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third 3 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 4 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 5 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 6 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 7 the factors favoring dismissal. 8 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 9 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 10 v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 11 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 12 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every 13 sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and 14 meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because 15 this action cannot realistically proceed without the ability for the Court and the defendants to send 16 Plaintiff case-related documents, filings, and orders, and litigation cannot progress without 17 Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 18 another deadline. But without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even 19 reach Plaintiff is low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander 20 the Court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 21 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. Having thoroughly considered these dismissal 22 factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of dismissal. 23 /// 24 25 /// 1 |) IL. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 3 || Plaintiffs failure to file an updated address in compliance with the Court’s order. The Clerk of 4 || Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. If Plaintiff wishes to 5 || pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case, address the matter of the filing fee, and 6 || provide the Court his updated address. 7 8 DATED: December 22, 2025. 9 10 Gloria M. Ve District Judge United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25