Justin Alexander Calvin v. United States of America, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00301
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JUSTIN ALEXANDER CALVIN, Case No. 3:25-cv-00301-ART-CLB

4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Justin Calvin brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 9 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while in 10 custody at Washoe County Detention Facility. (ECF No. 1-1). On October 20, 11 2025, this Court ordered Calvin to either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a 12 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-inmates by November 13 19, 2025. (ECF No. 6). That deadline expired without any response by Calvin. 14 DISCUSSION 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 16 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 17 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 18 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 19 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 20 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 21 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 22 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 23 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 24 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 25 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 26 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 27 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 1 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 2 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 3 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 4 dismissal of Calvin’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 5 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 6 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 7 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 8 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 9 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 10 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 11 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 12 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 13 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 14 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 15 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 16 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 17 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 18 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this Court cannot operate without 19 collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without Calvin’s 20 compliance with the Court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order 21 setting another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the 22 inevitable and further squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances 23 here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline 24 is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor 25 favors dismissal. 26 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 27 they weigh in favor of dismissal. 1 || II. CONCLUSION 2 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based 3 || on the plaintiffs failure to address the matter of the filing fee in compliance with 4 || the Court’s order. 5 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and 6 || close this case. If Justin Calvin wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a 7 || complaint in a new case and address the matter of the filing fee in that action. 8 9 DATED: December 29, 2025. 10 11 12 An posed 13 ANNE R. TRAUM 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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