Mathew Laneave v. Nevada Department of Corrections, et al.

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MATHEW LANEAVE, Case No. 3:25-cv-00508-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF 9 CORRECTIONS, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Plaintiff Mathew Laneave brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 13 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Lovelock 14 Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1.) On February 9, 2026, this Court ordered Plaintiff 15 to file his updated address with the Court and either pay the full $405 filing fee or file an 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-inmates by March 9, 2026. (ECF No. 5.) 17 The Court warned Plaintiff that the action could be dismissed if he failed to timely comply. 18 (Id. at 1.) That deadline expired and Plaintiff did not file his updated address, pay the filing 19 fee, apply for in forma pauperis status, or otherwise respond. 20 I. DISCUSSION 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 22 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 23 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 24 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 25 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 26 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 27 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 28 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 2 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 3 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 4 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 5 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 6 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 8 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s 9 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 10 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 11 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 12 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 13 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 14 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 15 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 16 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 17 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 18 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 19 Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 20 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 21 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed until 22 Plaintiff addresses the matter of the filing fee, the only alternative is to enter a second 23 order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often 24 only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. And without an 25 updated address, the likelihood that a second order would reach Plaintiff is low. The 26 circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another 27 deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor 28 favors dismissal. 1 || Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 2 || favor of dismissal. 3 || Ul. CONCLUSION 4 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 5 || Plaintiff's failure to file his updated address with the Court and address the matter of the 6 || filing fee in compliance with this Court’s February 9, 2026, order. 7 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 8 || If Mathew Laneave wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case 9 || and either pay the filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis. 10 DATED THIS 17" Day of March 2026.

12 MIRANDA M. DU 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28