Iden v. Dikin

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 16, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00006
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 RICHARD IDEN, Case No. 3:25-cv-00006-ART-CSD

4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 5 DOCTOR DIKIN, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Richard Iden brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 9 to redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while incarcerated 10 at Ely State Prison. (ECF No. 1-1). On January 1, 2025, this Court ordered the 11 plaintiff to either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a complete application to 12 proceed in forma pauperis by March 10, 2025. (ECF No. 3). On the plaintiff’s 13 motion, the Court extended the deadline to May 1, 2025. (ECF No. 5). That 14 extended deadline expired without any response by the plaintiff. 15 DISCUSSION 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 17 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 18 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 19 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 20 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 21 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 22 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 23 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 24 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 25 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 26 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 27 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 1 drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 2 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 4 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 5 dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to 6 defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 7 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by 8 the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 9 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases 10 on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 11 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 12 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 13 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 14 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 15 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 16 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 17 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 18 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 19 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this Court cannot operate without 20 collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without the plaintiff’s 21 compliance with the Court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter a third order 22 setting another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only further 23 squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate 24 that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 25 alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 26 CONCLUSION 27 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 1 || dismissed without prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to address the matter 2 || of the filing fee in compliance with the Court’s order. The Clerk of Court is kindly 3 || directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents 4 || may be filed in this now-closed case. If Richard Iden wishes to pursue his claims, 5 || he must file a complaint in a new case and address the matter of the filing fee. 6 7 DATED: May 16, 2025. 8 9 10 4 jlosect en 11 ANNE R. TRAUM 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28