Nunn v. High Desert State Prison

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 TYRONE NOEL NUNN, Case No. 2:24-cv-02343-GMN-BNW

6 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE 7 v.

8 HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al.,

9 Defendants.

10 This action began with a pro se civil-rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a 11 state prisoner. On January 7, 2025, the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to either file a 12 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee for this action 13 by February 5, 2025. (ECF No. 3). The magistrate judge warned Plaintiff that this action would 14 be subject to dismissal without prejudice if he failed to timely comply. (Id. at 2). But that 15 deadline expired without any compliance or other response from Plaintiff. 16 I. DISCUSSION 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 18 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 19 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 20 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. 21 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 22 with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack 23 of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action 24 on these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 25 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 26 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 27 drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 28 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 2 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third 3 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 4 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. 5 Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring 6 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 7 The fifth factor requires this Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 8 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the need to consider dismissal. Yourish v. Cal. 9 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives 10 before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. 11 Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short 12 of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 13 alternatives.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Because the Court cannot operate without collecting 14 reasonable fees and litigation cannot progress without Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s 15 orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But repeating an 16 ignored order often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The 17 circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Moreover, Nunn has filed 18 over 80 pro se lawsuits in this district since July 2023.1 Dozens of these lawsuits have been 19 dismissed because Nunn failed to correct fundamental defects with them like filing a single, signed 20 complaint and either paying the filing fee or filing a complete application to proceed in forma 21 pauperis.2 Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, 22 the fifth factor favors dismissal. 23 II. CONCLUSION 24 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 25 favor of dismissal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED 26 27 1 I take judicial notice of the Court’s records which may be accessed by the public online at: https://pacer.uscourts.gov. 28 2 See, e.g., Nunn v. Dep’t of Corr., Case No. 3:24-cv-00050-ART-CLB, ECF No. 4 (D. 1 || without prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to address the matter of the filing fee in 2 || compliance with the Court’s January 7, 2025, order. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to 3 || ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. If Tyrone Nunn wishes to pursue 4 || his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and either apply for in forma pauperis status or 5 || pay the required filing fee for that action. Yj, 6 || DATED: February 21, 2025 Ly , 7 GLORIA ay VARROU g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2Anf2