Jaquan Collins v. Barks, et al.

Opinion

* * *

JAQUAN COLLINS, Case No. 3:25-cv-00018-MMD-CSD

Plaintiff, ORDER v. BARKS, et al., Defendants. Pro se Plantiff Jaquan Collins, who is currently incarcerated in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 4, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and ordered him to file an amended Complaint within 90 days of the date. (ECF No. 6.) On October 28, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney issued an order reminding Plaintiff of the deadline to submit an amended complaint. (ECF No. 9.) The deadline to file an amended complaint expired and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 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. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of 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 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and unless Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter another order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Plaintiff needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 1 Il. CONCLUSION Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice, based Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s prior orders. (ECF Nos. 6, 9.) The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. DATED THIS 8" Day of December 2025.

MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE