Matthews v. Gittere

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 IVAN LEE MATTHEWS, II, Case No. 3:19-cv-00219-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 13 1983 by a person incarcerated in state prison. On March 27, 2020, the Court issued an 14 order dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an 15 amended complaint within 30 days. (ECF No. 5 at 8.) The 30-day period has now expired, 16 and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s 17 order. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 19 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 20 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 21 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 22 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 23 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 24 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 25 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 26 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 27 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 28 v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure 1 to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 2 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 4 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 8 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 9 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 10 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 11 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 12 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 13 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 14 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 15 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 16 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 17 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 18 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 19 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 20 at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days 21 expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint 22 curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be dismissed with prejudice 23 for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 5 at 9.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 24 dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended 25 complaint within 30 days. 26 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on 27 Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s March 27, 28 2020, order and for failure to state a claim. 1 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot. 3 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment accordingly. 5 6 DATED THIS 4"" day of May 2020. 7 / CL ) 8 MIRANDA M.DU 9 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28