Mark L. Sharp v. NV Challapalli Cardiology, et. al.

Opinion

3 * * *

4 MARK L. SHARP, Case No. 3:26-CV-00321-MMD-CLB

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

7 NV CHALLAPALLI CARDIOLOGY, et. al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 On May 4, 2026, Plaintiff Mark L. Sharp (“Plaintiff”) submitted a civil rights 11 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1-1). However, Plaintiff neither paid the full 12 filing fee nor submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, on May 5, 13 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to do so on or before June 4, 2026. (ECF No. 3.) To date, 14 Plaintiff has failed to do so. 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 16 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 17 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 18 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 19 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 20 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 21 with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 22 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 23 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring 24 pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 25 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson 26 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and

27 1 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Anne R. Traum, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate 1 failure to comply with local rules). 2 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 3 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 4 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 5 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 6 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 7 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 8 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 9 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 10 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 11 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs 12 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 13 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See 14 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy 15 favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor 16 of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a Court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 17 the Court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 18 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 19 at 1424. 20 The Court’s November 28, 2022 order expressly stated: “on or before Thursday, 21 June 4, 2026, Sharp will either: (1) pay the full $405 filing fee for a civil action (which 22 includes the $350 filing fee and the $55 administrative fee); or (2) file with the Court a 23 completed Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis for Non-Inmate on this Court’s 24 approved form, along with a completed and signed financial affidavit. Failure to do so will 25 result in a recommendation to the District Court to dismiss the action.” (ECF No. 3 26 (emphasis original).) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result 27 from his noncompliance with the Court’s order. 1 | based on Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee or file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with this Court’s May 5, 2026, order, (ECF No. 3). 3 Sharp is 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 For the reasons stated above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be 14| DISMISSED without prejudice; and, 15 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court ENTER JUDGMENT 16 | accordingly. 17 DATED: June 8, 2026. ‘ | .

18 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28