Harris v. Daniels

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 TRENTON HARRIS, Case No. 2:21-cv-01560-JAD-VCF

5 Plaintiff v. 6 Order Dismissing CHARLES DANIELS, et. al., and Closing Case 7 Defendants 8 9 On August 23, 2021, I ordered Plaintiff Trenton Harris to either pay the filing fee or file a 10 complete in forma pauperis application by October 20, 2021.1 That deadline expired without an 11 application or payment of the filing fee, so I dismiss and close this case. 12 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 13 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.2 A 14 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a 15 court order, or failure to comply with local rules.3 In determining whether to dismiss an action 16 on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 17 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 18 19 1 ECF No. 1 at 8. 20 2 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 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, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 1} defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 2|| availability of less drastic alternatives.* 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 4! court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 7|| ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.” A court’s warning to a party that its failure to 8|| obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of alternatives” requirement,° and that warning was given here.’ The fourth factor—the public 10]| policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors 11]| favoring dismissal. 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED without prejudice 13]| based on the plaintiff's failure to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 14|| the filing fee as ordered. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If 16]| Harris wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case, and he must either 17|| pay the filing fee or file a complete in forma pauperis application in that new case. 18 Dated: October 21, 2021

USS. District J conifel A, Dorsey 20 21 * Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. > See Anderson y. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. ECF No. 1 at 8.