McKinney v. Bean

Opinion

DISTRICT OF NEVADA Anthony McKinney, Case No. 2:24-cv-00775-CDS-BNW

Plaintiff Order Dismissing and Closing Case

v.

Jeremy Bean, et al.,

Defendants

Plaintiff Anthony McKinney brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. ECF No. 1-1. On May 16, 2024, the magistrate judge ordered McKinney to either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis by July 15, 2024. ECF No. 3. That deadline expired without payment of the filing fee or filing of an in forma pauperis application by McKinney, and his mail from the Court is being returned as undeliverable. See ECF No. 4. I. Discussion District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, I must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of McKinney’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting lan action. See Anderson v. Air West, 5342 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has /disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaga, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n4 Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because the court must collect fees from parties initiating civil actions, and this action cannot realistically proceed without the ability for the court and the defendants to send McKinney case- documents, filings, and orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another /deadline. But without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach McKinney is low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. Conclusion Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on McKinney’s failure to either pay the filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status in compliance with the court’s May /16, 2024, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If McKinney wishes to pursue his claims, he must a complaint in a new case, either pay the filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status, and provide the with his current address. *) Dated: September 6, 2024 J, / Lh tba Upited States District Judge XY