Moore v. Clark

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 13, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00225
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 MARLOS MOORE, Case No. 3:21-cv-00225-LRH-WGC 4 Plaintiff, v. ORDER 5 CLARK, et al., 6 Defendants. 7

8 9 Plaintiff Marlos Moore brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 10 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Warm 11 Springs Correctional Center. (ECF No. 4). On December 2, 2021, this Court ordered 12 Moore to file an amended complaint within 30 days. (ECF No. 3 at 7). The Court warned 13 Moore that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that 14 deadline. (Id. at 8). That deadline expired and Moore did not file an amended complaint, 15 move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 16 I. DISCUSSION 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 based on a party’s failure to obey a court 21 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 22 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 23 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 24 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 25 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 26 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 27 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 28 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 2 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 4 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Moore’s 5 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 6 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 7 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 8 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 9 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 10 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 11 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 12 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 13 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 14 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 15 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 16 “implicitly accepted pursuit of last drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 17 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 18 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 19 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 20 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 21 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 22 unless Moore files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order 23 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 24 delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 25 do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Moore needs 26 additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening order. Setting 27 another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth 28 factor favors dismissal. 1 |/ I. CONCLUSION 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 3 || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 4 || prejudice based on Moore’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this 5 || Court’s December 2, 2021, order and for failure to state a claim. 6 It is ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) 7 || without having to prepay the full filing fee is granted. Plaintiff will not be required to pay 8 || an initial installment fee. Nevertheless, the full filing fee will still be due, pursuant to 28 9 || U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 10 It is further ordered that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison 11 || Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections will forward payments from 12 || the account of Marlos Moore, #95961 to the Clerk of the United States District Court, 13 || District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits (in months that the account 14 || exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of 15 || the Court will send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. The 16 || Clerk will send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the 17 || Nevada Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702. 18 It is further ordered that, even though this action is dismissed, or is otherwise 19 || unsuccessful, the full filing fee will still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, as amended 20 || by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 21 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly 22 || and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Moore 23 || wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 24 25 DATED THIS 13th day of January 2022. 26 7 - 27 Li Lg 4 ff 33 UNIT#D Ads DIS LAUDG#