Matthews v. Gentry

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 11, 2021
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00368
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 IVAN LEE MATTHEWS, II, Case No. 3:19-cv-00368-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 JO GENTRY, et. al., 9 Defendants.

10 11 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 12 by a state prisoner. On August 17, 2020, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff Ivan 13 Matthews, II, to file his updated address with the Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 3.) The 14 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or 15 otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 17 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 18 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 19 A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 20 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. 21 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissing for noncompliance with local rule); 22 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissing for failure to 23 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 24 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissing for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se 25 plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 26 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissing for failure to comply with court order); 27 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissing for lack of 28 prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 1 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 2 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 3 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to Defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 5 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 6 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 7 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 8 In the instant case, the Court finds the first two factors, the public’s interest in 9 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 10 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs 11 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 12 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the Court or prosecuting an action. 13 See Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public 14 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors 15 in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his or her 16 failure to obey a court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 17 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; 18 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated 19 address with the Court within 30 days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff 20 fails to timely comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” 21 (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Plaintiff thus had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 22 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address within 30 days. 23 It is therefore ordered that this action be dismissed without prejudice based on 24 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with the Court’s August 17, 25 2020 order. 26 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) 27 is denied as moot. 28 /// 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 2|| No further documents shall be filed in this closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his 3|| claims, Plaintiff must file a complaint in a new case, and he must either pay the $402.00 4|| filing fee or file a complete in forma pauperis application in that new case. 5 DATED THIS 11* Day of January 2021. 6 ALR 8 CHIEF UN TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28