Ford v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ELIJAH L. PALMER, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00324-KJD-DJA

4 Plaintiff ORDER

5 v.

6 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 10 by Plaintiff Brian Ford incarcerated at the Clark County Detention Center. On February 11 13, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff Ford to file an amended complaint 12 and a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of 13 $400 within thirty days from the date of that order. (Id. at 10). The thirty-day period has 14 now expired, and Plaintiff Ford has not filed an amended complaint or an application to 15 proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s 16 order. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 18 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 19 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 20 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 21 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 22 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 23 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 24 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 25 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 26 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 27 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 28 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 2 local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 4 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 8 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 9 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 10 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 11 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 12 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 13 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 14 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 15 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 16 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 17 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 18 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 19 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 20 F.2d at 1424. 21 The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff Ford to file an amended complaint and an 22 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee within thirty days 23 expressly stated: “It is further ordered that if any plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint 24 within 30 days of this order, that plaintiff’s action will be dismissed without prejudice to 25 that plaintiff later filing a new action with a new complaint.” (ECF No. 4 at 10). 26 Additionally, the Court’s order also expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if any 27 plaintiff fails to either pay the complete filing fee or file a complete application to proceed 28 in forma pauperis, including the required financial attachments, within 30 days of the date of this order, the action by that plaintiff will be dismissed without prejudice to that plaintiff 2 later filing an action in a new case with a new complaint and either paying the full filing 3 feeor filing a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with the required financial 4) documents.” (/d. at 10). Thus, Plaintiff Ford had adequate warning that dismissal would 5 | result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint and an 6 | application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee within thirty days. 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERD that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff Ford’s failure to file an amended complaint or another application to proceed 9 | in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated 10| February 13, 2020. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter 12 | judgment accordingly. 13 DATED: _March 25, 2020 14 J I> 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-