Nunn v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01984
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2

3 TYRONE NOEL NUNN, Case No. 2:24-cv-01984-GMN-BNW

4 Plaintiff, DISMISSAL ORDER v. 5 UNITED STATES, 6 Defendant. 7

8 9 Plaintiff Tyrone Noel Nunn brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 10 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered. (ECF No. 1-1.) On November 11 14, 2024, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 12 pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee on or before December 20, 2024. (ECF No. 3.) The 13 Court warned Plaintiff that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $405 15 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. (Id. at 2.) That deadline expired and Plaintiff 16 did not file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $405 17 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 18 I. DISCUSSION 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 22 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 23 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 24 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 25 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 26 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 27 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 28 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 2 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 3 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 4 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 6 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s 7 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 8 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 9 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 10 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 11 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 13 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 14 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 15 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 16 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 17 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 18 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 19 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 20 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 21 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 22 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 23 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until 24 and unless Plaintiff either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis 25 or pays the $405 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order 26 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 27 delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 28 1 || do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Plaintiff needs 2 || additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court's order. 3 Moreover, Plaintiff has filed over 80 pro se lawsuits in this district since July 2023." 4 || Dozens of these lawsuits have been dismissed because Plaintiff failed to correct 5 || fundamental defects with them such as paying the filing fee or filing a complete application 6 || to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, Plaintiff has been informed numerous times how to 7 || file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. Setting another deadline is not 8 || a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. Il. CONCLUSION 10 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 11 || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 12 || prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 13 || pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s November 14, 2024, 14 || order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 15 || No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue 16 || his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and pay the filing fee or file a complete 17 || application to proceed in forma pauperis. 18 19 DATED: January 2, 2025 ff 20 21 We — Gloria □□ Navarro, Judge 22 Sr ce District Court 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the U.S. Courts, which may be accessed by the public at: https://pacer.uscourts.gov.