Jordan Jeffrey Pruett v. Charles Daniels

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 23, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00533
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JORDAN JEFFREY PRUETT, Case No. 3:24-cv-00533-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CHARLES DANIELS, 9 Defendants. 10

11 Pro se Plaintiff Jordan Jeffrey Pruett brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 12 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated 13 at Ely Conservation Camp. (ECF No. 6 at 1.) On May 27, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff 14 to file an amended complaint by June 26, 2025. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff requested and 15 received two extensions of time to file an amended complaint, resulting in a deadline of 16 October 10, 2025. (ECF Nos. 8, 10.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the action could be 17 dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline. (ECF No. 10.) That 18 deadline has expired, and since the entry of the Court’s most recent order, Plaintiff has 19 not filed an amended complaint, moved for an extension, or otherwise responded. 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 21 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 22 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 23 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or 24 comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 25 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep 26 court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 27 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 28 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 2 (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases 3 on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 4 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 5 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 6 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 7 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s 8 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 9 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 10 a pleading ordered by a court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 11 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 12 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 14 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 15 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 16 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 17 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 18 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 19 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 20 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 21 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 22 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 23 case but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 24 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 25 unless Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter another order 26 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 27 delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 28 do not indicate that this case will be an exception. There is no hint that Plaintiff needs 1 || additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s prior orders. Setting another 2 || deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, the fifth factor 3 || favors dismissal. 4 Having thoroughly considered these factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 5 || favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice 6 || based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s 7 || prior orders. (ECF Nos. 5, 8, 10.) The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment 8 || accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed 9 || case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 10 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 11 || Nos. 1, 4) is denied as moot. 12 DATED THIS 23" Day of October 2025.

14 MIRANDA M. DU 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28