Randall v. Stockard

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 11, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00217
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 AARON RANDALL, Case No. 3:25-CV-00217-MMD-CLB

5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE1 6 v.

7 THOMAS L. STOCKARD, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 On May 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint with the Court. (ECF No. 1- 11 1.) However, Plaintiff did not submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 12 or filing fee. Thus, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either submit an IFP application or pay 13 the full filing fee by Wednesday, June 5, 2025. (ECF No. 3.) The Court cautioned Plaintiff 14 that his failure to timely comply with the order would subject his case to dismissal without 15 prejudice. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 17 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 18 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 19 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 20 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 21 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 22 with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 23 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 24 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring 25 pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 26

27 1 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate 1 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 2 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 3 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 4 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 5 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 6 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 7 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 8 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 9 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 10 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 11 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs 12 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 13 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See 14 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy 15 favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor 16 of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a Court’s warning to a party that her failure to obey 17 the Court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 18 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 19 at 1424. In the order directing Plaintiff to submit an IFP application or pay the full filing 20 fee, the order expressly stated that if Plaintiff failed to timely comply, the case would be 21 subject to dismissal without prejudice. (ECF No. 3.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning 22 that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order. 23 Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s 24 failure to timely submit an IFP application or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this 25 Court’s order. 26 The parties are advised: 27 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Rule IB 3-2 of the Local Rules of 1 | Recommendation within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be entitled 2| “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” and should be | accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the District Court. 4 2. This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and any 5 | notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the 6 | District Court’s judgment. 7| OL RECOMMENDATION 8 For the reasons stated above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice; 10 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court ENTER JUDGMENT 11 | accordingly. 12 DATED: June 11, 2025 . 13 14 UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28