Munoz v. Benson

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 BRIAN MUNOZ, Case No. 3:24-CV-00048-ART-CLB

5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE1 6 v.

7 BENSON, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff changed his address following his release from 11 Nevada Department of Corrections custody. (ECF No. 12.) On March 13, 2025, the Court 12 entered an order setting a case management conference. (ECF No. 25.) The Court mailed 13 this Order to Plaintiff’s address. On March 19, 2025, the document was returned as 14 undeliverable. (ECF No. 27.)2 15 Pursuant to Local Rule IA 3-1, a party must immediately file with the Court written 16 notification of any change of mailing address. Thus, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a 17 notice of change of address by April 18, 2025. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff was cautioned that 18 his failure to comply with this Court’s order would result in dismissal of this action. To 19 date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s order. 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 21 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 22 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 23 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 24 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 25 1 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Anne R. Traum, 26 United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and LR IB 1-4. 27 2 Several other documents were also returned as undeliverable. (See ECF Nos. 29, 1 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 2 with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 3 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 4 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring 5 pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 6 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson 7 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and 8 failure to comply with local rules). 9 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 10 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 11 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 12 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 13 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 14 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 15 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 16 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 17 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 18 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs 19 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 20 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See 21 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy 22 favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor 23 of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that his failure to 24 obey the Court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 25 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 26 at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to update his address explicitly stated that: 27 “Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of this action.” (ECF No. 28.) Thus, the Court’s order to update his address. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court's order to update his address, and his case should be dismissed accordingly. 3 For all of these reasons, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without 4) prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to update his address. 5 The parties are advised: 6 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Rule IB 3-2 of the Local Rules of 7 | Practice, the parties may file specific written objections to this Report and 8 | Recommendation within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be entitled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” and should be 10 | accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the District Court. 11 2. This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and any 12 notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the 13 | District Court’s judgment. I. RECOMMENDATION 15 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without 16 | prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to update his address in compliance with the Court’s 17 order; and, 18 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly. 20 DATED: April 25, 2025 : 7 ‘

21 39 UNITED STATES'\MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28