Quiwaneca Spikes v. Alden

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 17, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-01294
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 QUIWANECA SPIKES, Case No. 2:26-cv-01294-MMD-EJY

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ALDEN, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Plaintiff Quiwaneca Spikes brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 12 redress constitutional violations that she claims she suffered while incarcerated at 13 Florence McClure Women’s Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1-1.) On May 5, 2026, the 14 Court ordered Spikes to either pay the full $405 filing fee or file an application to proceed 15 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) by June 8, 2026. (ECF No. 3.) The Court warned Spikes that 16 the action could be dismissed if she failed to timely comply. (Id. at 2.) That deadline 17 expired and Spikes did not pay the filing fee, apply for IFP status, or otherwise respond. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 19 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 20 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 21 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 22 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 23 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 24 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 25 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 26 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 27 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 28 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 2 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 3 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 4 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 5 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Spikes’s 6 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 7 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 8 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 9 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 10 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 11 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 12 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 13 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 14 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 15 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 16 Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 17 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 18 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed until 19 Spikes addresses the matter of the filing fee, the only alternative is to enter a second 20 order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often 21 only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances 22 here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline is not a 23 meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 2 || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 3 || prejudice based on Spikes’s failure to address the matter of the filing fee in compliance 4 || with this Court’s May 5, 2026, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 5 || accordingly and close this case. If Spikes wishes to pursue her claims, she must file a 6 || complaint in a new case and either pay the filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis. 7 8 DATED THIS 17" Day of June 2026.

10 MIRANDA M. DU 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28