Kristopher Gonzalez v. Lyon County Sheriff’s Department

Opinion

* * *

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

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

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

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 with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 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) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s 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. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal since 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 — public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits — is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, the Court’s warning to Gonzalez that his case would be subject to dismissal if he did not file a complaint as ordered satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order expressly stated that “if Gonzalez does not file a complaint . . . on or before Monday, March 2, 2026, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” (ECF No. 3 (emphasis omitted).) Thus, Gonzalez had adequate warning that Accordingly, the Court recommends this action be dismissed without prejudice based on Gonzalez’s failure to file a complaint as ordered. The parties are advised: 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 Recommendation within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be entitled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” and should be accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the District Court. 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 District Court’s judgment. I. RECOMMENDATION IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE this case. DATED: March 3, 2026 .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE