Edwards v. Estill

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 RONNIE EDWARDS, Case No. 2:19-cv-01268-GMN-VCF

4 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 5 BENJAMIN ESTILL, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 I. DISCUSSION 9 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 10 by a former state prisoner. On December 8, 2020, this Court issued an order directing 11 Plaintiff to file his updated address with this Court on or before January 7, 2021. (ECF 12 No. 12 at 1.) That deadline has now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated 13 address or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 14 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 15 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 16 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 17 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 18 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 19 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 20 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 21 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 22 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 23 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 25 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 26 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 27 local rules). /// 1 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 2 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 3 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 5 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 6 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 7 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 8 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 9 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 10 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 11 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 12 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 13 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 14 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 15 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 16 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 17 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 18 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the 19 Court by January 7, 2021, expressly stated: “Failure to comply with this rule may result in 20 the dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as deemed 21 appropriate by the court.” (ECF No. 12 at 1.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 22 dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated 23 address by January 7, 2021. 24 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 25 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s December 8, 26 2020, order. 27 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis for 1 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 5) 2 is denied as moot. 3 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly.

4 14 DATED THIS ____ day of January 2021. 5

6 Gloria M. Navarro, Judge 7 United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27