Rosemore v. Mineral County Sheriffs Office

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 5, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00451
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 BRYCE AARON ROSEMORE, Case No. 3:21-cv-00451-RCJ-CLB 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v. 6 WILLIAM FERGUSON, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Plaintiff brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 2, 2022, 10 this Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies noted 11 in the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5) by April 1, 2022. (ECF No. 6). The Court 12 warned Plaintiff that the action may be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint 13 by that deadline. (ECF No. 6). That deadline expired and Plaintiff did not file an amended 14 complaint or move for an extension. 15 I. DISCUSSION 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 based on a party’s failure to obey a court 20 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 21 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 22 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 23 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 24 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 25 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 26 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 27 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 28 2 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 4 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s 5 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 6 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 7 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 8 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 9 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 10 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 11 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 12 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 13 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 14 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 15 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 16 “implicitly accepted pursuit of last drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 17 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 18 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 19 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 20 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 21 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 22 unless Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order 23 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 24 delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 25 do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Plaintiff requested 26 additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s order adopting and 27 accepting the report and recommendation. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 28 alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 1 |] □□□ CONCLUSION 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 3 || weigh in favor of dismissal. 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED for failure to 5 || file an amended complaint by the court-ordered deadline, leaving no claims pending. 6 IT IS FURTHER OREDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 7 8 DATED THIS 5" day of April 2022.

10 . ROBERT C.SNES 11 UNITED STAFES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28