Motley v. State of Nevada

Opinion

5 * * *

6 COURTNEY MOTLEY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00056-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 NEVADA, STATE OF, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 12 by a former state prisoner. On June 9, 2021, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff 13 Courtney Motley’s application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot and 14 directing Motley to file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis with this 15 Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 123.) The 30-day period has now expired, and Motley has 16 not filed a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise responded 17 to the Court’s 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 L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 21 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to 22 prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See 23 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 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 Motley to file a non-prisoner application to proceed 21 in forma pauperis with the Court within 30 days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER 22 ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, this case will be subject 23 to dismissal without prejudice.” (ECF No. 123 at 2.) Thus, Motley had adequate warning 24 that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file a non- 25 prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days. 26 /// 27 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 2|| Motley’s failure to file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis in 3|| compliance with this Court’s June 9, 2021, order. 4 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 6 DATED THIS 20" Day of July 2021. a

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