Matthews v. Reubart

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 IVAN LEE MATTHEWS, II, Case No. 3:19-cv-00252-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff ORDER

8 v.

9 WILLIAM REUBART 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 state prisoner. On May 14, 2020, the Court issued an order dismissing the 14 Complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 15 30 days. (ECF No. 3 at 6-7.) The 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not 16 filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 18 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 19 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 20 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 21 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 22 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 23 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 24 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 25 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 26 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 27 v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure 28 to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 1 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and 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 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 8 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 9 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 10 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 11 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 12 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 13 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 14 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 15 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 16 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. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days 20 expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint 21 curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be dismissed with prejudice 22 for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 3 at 7.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 23 dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended 24 complaint within 30 days. 25 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on 26 Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s May 14, 27 2020, order and for failure to state a claim. 28 /// 1 It is further ordered that the motion 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 23" day of June 2020. 7

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