Kristopher Gonzalez v. Lyon County Sheriff’s Department

Opinion

3 * * *

4 KRISTOPHER GONZALEZ, Case No. 3:26-CV-00066-MMD-CLB

5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE1 6 v.

DEPARTMENT, 8 Defendant. 9 10 11 On January 28, 2026, Plaintiff Kristopher Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) filed an 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis, but did not file a complaint. (ECF No. 1.) The 13 Court issued an order informing Gonzalez that without a complaint no action could be 14 commenced. (ECF No. 3.) The Court granted Gonzalez a one-time extension, until March 15 2, 2026, to file a complaint, and admonished Gonzalez that if he failed to do so his case 16 would “be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” (Id.) To date, no complaint has been 17 filed. The Court therefore recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 19 exercise of that power . . . may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 20 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 21 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1961)). A court may dismiss 22 an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey 23 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53- 24 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. 25 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 26

27 1 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate 1 with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 2 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se 3 plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 4 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson 5 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution 6 and failure to comply with local rules). 7 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 8 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 9 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 10 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 11 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 12 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 13 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 14 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 15 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 16 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs 17 in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 18 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See 19 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor — public policy 20 favoring disposition of cases on their merits — is greatly outweighed by the factors in 21 favor of dismissal discussed herein. 22 Finally, the Court’s warning to Gonzalez that his case would be subject to dismissal 23 if he did not file a complaint as ordered satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 24 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 25 at 1424. The Court’s order expressly stated that “if Gonzalez does not file a complaint . . 26 . on or before Monday, March 2, 2026, this case will be subject to dismissal without 27 prejudice.” (ECF No. 3 (emphasis omitted).) Thus, Gonzalez had adequate warning that 1 Accordingly, the Court recommends this action be dismissed without prejudice based on Gonzalez’s failure to file a complaint as ordered. 3 The parties are advised: 4 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Rule IB 3-2 of the Local Rules of Practice, the parties may file specific written objections to this Report and 6 | Recommendation within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be entitled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” and should be 8 | accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the District Court. 9 2. This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the 11 | District Court’s judgment. I. RECOMMENDATION 13 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 15 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court ENTER JUDGMENT 16 | accordingly and CLOSE this case. 17 DATED: March 3, 2026 .

19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28