Pallotti v. Nye County Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 7, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01775
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM PALLOTTI, Case No. 2:22-cv-01775-CDS-VCF

7 Plaintiff ORDER 8 v.

9 NYE COUNTY NEVADA, et al.,

10 Defendants

11 12 Plaintiff Christopher William Pallotti brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 13 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Nye 14 County Detention Center. ECF No. 1-1. On November 11, 2022, this Court ordered Pallotti to 15 file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or 16 before January 20, 2023. ECF No. 3. The Court warned Pallotti that the action could be 17 dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all 18 three documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. Id. at 2. That 19 deadline expired and Pallotti did not file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis, pay the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 21 I. DISCUSSION 22 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 23 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 24 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss 25 an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 26 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local 27 rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 28 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 2 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) 3 the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 4 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. 5 Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 6 (9th Cir. 1987)). 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and 8 the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Pallotti’s claims. The 9 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 10 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 11 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th 12 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is 13 greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 14 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be 15 used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See 16 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 17 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 18 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive 19 force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives 20 prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial 21 granting of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have 22 been “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 23 finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 24 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 25 until and unless Pallotti either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or 26 pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 27 another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the 28 inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate 2 evidence that he did not receive the Court’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 3 alternative given these circumstances. As a result, the fifth factor favors dismissal. 4 II. CONCLUSION 5 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh 6 in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice 7 based on Pallotti’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 8 the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s November 21, 2022, order. 9 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No 10 other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Pallotti wishes to pursue his claims, he 11 must file a complaint in a new case. 12 SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: February 7, 2023

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28