George Karp v. Alonzo, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 10, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00171
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 GEORGE KARP, Case No. 3:25-cv-00171-MMD-CSD

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

11 12 Plaintiff George Karp brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 13 redress constitutional violations he claims he suffered while incarcerated. In December 14 2025, Plaintiff asked for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint. (ECF 15 No. 6). The Court granted that extension and ordered Plaintiff to file a second amended 16 complaint by January 30, 2026. (ECF No. 7.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the action 17 could be dismissed if he failed to file a second amended complaint by that deadline. (Id.) 18 That deadline expired, and Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint, move for an 19 extension, or otherwise respond. 20 I. DISCUSSION 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 22 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 23 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 24 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or 25 comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 26 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep 27 court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 28 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss an 2 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 3 of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 4 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 5 Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 6 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 7 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s 8 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 9 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 10 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 11 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 12 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 14 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 15 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 16 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 17 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 18 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 19 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 20 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 21 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 22 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 23 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 24 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 25 unless Plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a third 26 order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often 27 only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances 28 here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. There is no hint that Plaintiff needs 1 || additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s order granting an extension 2 || of time. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 3 || circumstances. Thus, the fifth factor favors dismissal. 4 || Il. CONCLUSION 5 Having thoroughly considered these factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 6 || favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice 7 || based on Plaintiff's failure to file a second amended complaint in compliance with the 8 || Court's December 22, 2025 order and for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is 9 || directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue 10 || his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 11 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 12 || No. 1) without having to prepay the full filing fee is granted. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the 13 || full filing fee will still be due even though this action is dismissed and is otherwise 14 || unsuccessful. 15 It is further ordered that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Nevada Department of 16 || Corrections will forward payments from the account of George Karp, #1263691 to the 17 || Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month’s 18 || deposits (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has 19 || been paid for this action. The Clerk of the Court will send a copy of this order to the 20 || Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk will send a copy of this order to the Chief 21 || of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections 22 || at formapauperis @doc.nv.gov. 23 DATED THIS 10" Day of February 2026. 24 25 26 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28