Nunn v. High Desert State Prison

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Tyrone Noel Nunn, Case No. 2:24-cv-01317-CDS-NJK

5 Plaintiff Order Dismissing and Closing Case 6 v.

7 High Desert State Prison, et al.,

8 Defendants

9 10 Pro se plaintiff Tyrone Nunn, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Nevada 11 Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) and assigned NDOC #1252474, brings this civil-rights 12 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while 13 incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. See ECF No. 1-1. On July 22, 2024, the magistrate judge 14 ordered Nunn to pay the full $405 filing fee or file a complete application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis by September 20, 2024. ECF No. 3. The magistrate judge warned Nunn that the action 16 could be dismissed if he failed to timely comply. That deadline expired and Nunn did not pay the 17 filing fee or file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. Rather, Nunn belatedly filed a 18 document titled “in forma pauperis” that states simply “28 U.S.C. 1915a.” ECF No. 4. 19 I. Discussion 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 21 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 22 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an 23 action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 24 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 25 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 26 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether 27 to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 28 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 2 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 3 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 4 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and 5 the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissing Nunn’s claims. The third 6 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 7 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 8 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 9 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 10 the factors favoring dismissal. 11 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be 12 used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See 13 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 14 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 15 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every 16 sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and 17 meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this 18 court cannot operate without collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without a 19 plaintiff’s compliance with the court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order 20 setting another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the inevitable and 21 further squanders the court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this 22 case will be an exception. Indeed, Nunn has filed over 80 pro se lawsuits in this district since July 23 2023.1 Dozens of these lawsuits have been dismissed because Nunn failed to correct fundamental 24 defects with them like filing a single, signed complaint and either paying the filing fee or filing a 25 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 26 alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 27 28 1 I take judicial notice of the online docket records of the U.S. Courts, which may be accessed by the public 1 □□□ Conclusion 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 3 ||dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Tyrone 4 ||Nunn’s failure to pay the filing fee or file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis in 5 ||compliance with the court’s order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly 6 ||and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 7 Dated: December 12, 2024 /, ) 8 LZ kha —— Cristizia D. Silva 10 yes States District Judge u ‘

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28