Jauregui v. Cameron

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 16, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00528
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * 5 6 ARMANDO JAUREGUI, Case No. 3:19-cv-00528-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 DARCY CAMERON, et al.,

10 Defendants. 11 12 This is a pro se civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a former 13 state prisoner. On May 8, 2020, this Court issued an order denying the application to 14 proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot because Plaintiff was no longer 15 incarcerated. (ECF No. 4.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully complete application 16 to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee of $400.00 within 17 30 days from the date of that order. (Id.) The 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff 18 has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners, paid the full 19 filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. The Court will therefore dismiss 20 this case. 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise 22 of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a 23 case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 24 A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 25 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. 26 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); 27 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply 28 with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 2 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 3 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 4 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 5 local rules). 6 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 7 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 8 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 9 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 10 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 11 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 12 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 13 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors weigh in favor of 14 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 15 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 16 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 17 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring 18 disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 19 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the 20 court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 21 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 22 at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma 23 pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee within 30 days explicitly provided that, 24 if Plaintiff did not timely comply with the order, dismissal of this action may result. (ECF 25 No. 4 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 26 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis 27 for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee within 30 days. 28 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 2 || Plaintiff's failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or 3 || pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court’s May 8, 2020 order. If Plaintiff wishes 4 || to pursue any claims, he must file a complaint in a new action with the required fee or 5 || application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners. 6 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment accordingly and close 7 || this case. No other documents will be filed in this action. 8 DATED THIS 16" day of June 2020.

/ — "0 MIRANDA M-DU 11 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28