Michael-Steve Cox v. Henley, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00600
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 MICHAEL-STEVE COX, Case No. 3:25-cv-00600-ART-CSD

4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 5 HENLEY, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Michael-Steve Cox, also known as Steve M. Cox, NDOC #40295, 9 brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress constitutional 10 violations that he allegedly suffered while incarcerated at Northern Nevada 11 Correctional Center. On November 3, 2025, this Court ordered Cox to file a 12 signed complaint by December 3, 2025. (ECF No. 5). That deadline expired 13 without any response by Cox. 14 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 15 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 16 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 17 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 18 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 19 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 20 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 21 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 22 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 23 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 24 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 25 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 26 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 27 drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 2 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 3 dismissal of Cox’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also 4 weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 5 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 6 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 7 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 8 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 9 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 10 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 11 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 12 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 13 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 14 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 15 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 16 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 17 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed without a 18 signed complaint by Cox and litigation cannot progress without Cox’s compliance 19 with the Court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 20 another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the inevitable 21 and further squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do 22 not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline is not 23 a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors 24 dismissal. 25 CONCLUSION 26 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 27 they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 1 || complaint in compliance with the Court’s order. The Clerk of Court is kindly 2 || directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. If Michael-Steve Cox 3 || wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a signed complaint in a new case and 4 || address the matter of the filing fee in that action. 5 It is further ordered that Cox’s in forma pauperis application and motions 6 || for various relief (ECF Nos. 1, 4, 1-2, 1-3) are denied as moot. 7 8 DATED: January 7, 2026.

10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28