Emanuel v. Ruebart

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 5, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00485
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 TROY EMANUEL, JR., Case No. 3:22-cv-00485-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 WILLIAM RUEBART, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 12 Plaintiff Troy Emanuel, Jr. brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 13 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Ely State 14 Prison. (ECF No. 6.) On November 21, 2022, the Court ordered Emanuel to file an 15 amended complaint within 30 days. (ECF No. 5 at 7.) The Court warned Emanuel that the 16 action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline. (Id. 17 at 8.) That deadline expired and Emanuel did not file an amended complaint, move for an 18 extension, or otherwise respond. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 22 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or 23 comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 24 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep 25 court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 26 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss an 27 action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in the 28 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 2 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 3 Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 4 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 5 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Emanuel’s 6 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 7 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 8 a pleading ordered by the Court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 9 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 10 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 11 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 12 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 13 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 14 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 15 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 16 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 17 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 18 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 19 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 20 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 21 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 22 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 23 unless Emanuel files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second 24 order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often 25 only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances 26 here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Emanuel 27 needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening order. 28 1 || Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. Thus, 2 || the fifth factor favors dismissal. 3 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 4 || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 5 || prejudice based on Emanuel's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with the 6 || Court’s November 21, 2022, order and for failure to state a claim. 7 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 8 || No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Emanuel wishes to pursue 9 || his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 10 It is further ordered that Emanuel’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 11 || No. 4) without having to prepay the full filing fee is granted. Emanuel will not be required 12 || to pay an initial installment fee. Nevertheless, the full filing fee will still be due, under 28 13 || U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 14 It is further ordered that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison 15 || Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections will forward payments from 16 || the account of Troy Emanuel, Jr., #1110489 to the Clerk of the United States District 17 || Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits (in months that the 18 || account exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The 19 || Clerk of Court will send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. 20 || The Clerk will send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the 21 || Nevada Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702. 22 It is further ordered that, even though this action is dismissed, or is otherwise 23 || unsuccessful, the full filing fee will still be due, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by 24 || the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 25 DATED THIS 5" Day of January 2023. 26 . “a er MIRANDA M. DU — 28 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE