Glover v. Howell

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Case No.: 2:20-cv-00845-JAD-DJA Lavonte Glover, 5 Plaintiff 6 Order Dismissing Action v. 7 Howell, et al., 8 Defendants 9 10 Plaintiff Lavonte Glover brings this civil-rights case under § 1983 for events he alleges 11 occurred during his incarceration at Southern Desert Correctional Center.1 The complaint did 12 not state what claims Glover was bringing, but briefly mentioned the defendants’ negligence. On 13 June 2, 2021, I issued a screening order, which dismissed any state law negligence claim without 14 prejudice and without leave to amend.2 I gave Glover leave to file an amended complaint to the 15 extent he wanted to bring any federal claims. I ordered Glover to file any amended complaint by 16 July 2, 2021, and I expressly warned him that his failure to timely comply with the order would 17 result in the dismissal of this case.3 The deadline has passed, and Glover has not filed an 18 amended complaint.4 19 20 21 22 1 ECF No. 1-1 (complaint).

23 2 ECF No. 3 (order). 24 3 Id. 25 4 Glover updated his address shortly after I issued my screening order (ECF No. 4), and the 26 screening order was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 5. However, the screening order was 27 remailed to Glover’s updated address on June 14, 2021. Thus, Glover has had ample opportunity to respond to the screening order. 28 1 1 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 2 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.5 A 3 court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 4 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.6 In determining whether to 5 dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 6 local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 7 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 8 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 9 availability of less drastic alternatives.7 10 I find that the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving the 11 litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissing this case. 12 The risk-of-prejudice factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 13 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 14 prosecuting an action.8 The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 15 dismissal, and a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in 16 dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement.9 Glover was warned that his 17 case would be dismissed with prejudice if he failed to file an amended complaint by July 2, 18 19 5 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

20 6 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with 21 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440– 22 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 23 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 24 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 7 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 25 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

26 8 See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 27 9 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 28 2 1 |]2021.'° So, Glover had adequate warning that his failure to file an amended complaint by the 2 || deadline would result in this case’s dismissal. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any federal claims are DISMISSED with 4 || prejudice, based on Glover’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this court’s 5 2, 2021, order; 6 Glover’s state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice, but without leave to 7 amend, as ordered in this court’s June 2, 2021, order; 8 This action is DISMISSED in its entirety; 9 Glover’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 6] is DENIED as moot; and 10 The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS 11 || CASE. D Dated: July 21, 2021 ° q y 14 rere 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ||'° ECF No. 3 (order).