Goodrum v. State of Nevada

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 MITCHELL KEITH GOODRUM, Case No. 3:20-cv-00185-RFB-WGC

5 Plaintiff, ORDER

6 v.

7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 11 On March 24, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a complaint 12 within sixty (60) days from the date of that order. (ECF No. 3 at 2). The sixty-day deadline 13 has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a complaint with this Court. 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). 28 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 1 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 2 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 3 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 4 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 5 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423. 6 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 7 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 8 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 9 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 10 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 11 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring disposition of 12 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed 13 herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will 14 result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 15 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 16 The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a complaint within sixty (60) days 17 expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with 18 this order, dismissal of this action may result." (ECF No. 3 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had 19 adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s 20 order to file a complaint within sixty days. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file a complaint in compliance with this Court’s order dated 3| March 24, 2020. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 5 | accordingly and close this case. 6 DATED THIS 23" day of July 2020. Ke 8 RICHARD ARE, Il 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-