Lawrence v. Minev

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 JOSEPH E. LAWRENCE, Case No. 2:22-cv-00325-ART-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 DR. MICHAEL MINEV, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 Pro se Plaintiff Joseph E. Lawrence brings this civil-rights action under 42 10 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 11 incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. (ECF No. 1-1). On March 7, 2022, this 12 Court ordered Plaintiff to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis 13 or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before May 6, 2022. (ECF No. 4). The Court 14 warned Plaintiff that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a complete 15 application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full 16 $402 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. (Id. at 2-3). That deadline expired 17 and Plaintiff did not file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or 18 pay the full filing fee. Because Plaintiff submitted a “Notice” purporting to explain 19 why he had not paid the filing fee or filed an in forma pauperis application, the 20 Court considered meaningful alternatives to dismissal and issued another order 21 granting Plaintiff one final opportunity to file a complete application to proceed 22 in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee on or before July 6, 2022. (ECF No. 8). 23 That deadline expired and Plaintiff still has not filed a complete application to 24 proceed in forma pauperis or paid the full filing fee. 25 DISCUSSION 26 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets, and “[i]n 27 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 28 1 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 2 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 3 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 4 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 5 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 6 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 7 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 8 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 9 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 11 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 12 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 13 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 14 Cir. 1987)). 15 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 16 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 17 dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 18 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 19 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 20 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 21 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 22 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 23 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 24 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 25 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 26 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 27 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 28 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 1 “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted 2 pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as 3 satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 4 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 5 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 6 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 7 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action 8 cannot realistically proceed until and unless Plaintiff either files a complete 9 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the $402 filing fee for a civil 10 action, the only alternative is to enter a third order setting another deadline. But 11 the reality of repeating two ignored orders is that it often only delays the inevitable 12 and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not 13 indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no indication that Plaintiff 14 needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s orders. 15 Setting a third deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 16 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 17 CONCLUSION 18 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 19 they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 20 dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a complete 21 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in 22 compliance with this Court’s March 7, 2022 and June 3, 2022, orders. The Clerk 23 of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 24 documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his 25 claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 26 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s pending motions (ECF Nos. 1-3, 2, 5) 27 are denied as moot. 28 1 DATED THIS 11th day of August 2022. ° pared 7d Ans Vested dm 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28