Rodriguez v. Core Civic

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 13, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01251
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 ADAM RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 2:20-cv-01251-RFB-NJK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v.

10 CORE CIVIC, Defendants. 11 12 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 13 1983. On January 22, 2021, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file his 14 updated address with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 8.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded 15 to 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 23 for 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 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson 27 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and 1 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 2 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 3 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 5 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 6 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 7 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 8 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 9 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 10 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs 11 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 12 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See 13 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy 14 favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 15 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 16 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 17 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the 18 Court within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this 19 order, the Court shall dismiss this case without.” (ECF No. 8 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had 20 adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s 21 order to file his updated address within thirty (30) days. 22 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 23 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s January 22, 24 2021 order. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue any of his claims, he must file a complaint in a 25 new action. 26 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) 27 is denied as moot. It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and 2 close this case. 3 It is further ordered that the Plaintiff may move to reopen this case and vacate the 4 judgment by filing a motion for reconsideration of this order. In this motion, the Plaintiff would need to explain that circumstances which led to him not being able to update his 61) address as directed by the Court. If the Court finds there is good cause or a reasonable explanation for the failure to update the address, the Court will reopen the case and vacate the judgment. 10 44 DATED THIS 13" day of April, 2021. AS 12 As RIC MRD F. HOULVY ARE, II 13 UNITED ST? STSTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28