Ruben Lopez v. A. Garcia, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00424
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 RUBEN LOPEZ, Case No. 3:25-cv-00424-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, DISMISSAL ORDER v. 8 A. GARCIA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 12 Plaintiff Ruben Lopez brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 13 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated. (ECF No. 14 1-1.) On August 20, 2025, this Court ordered Plaintiff to update his address by September 15 19, 2025, and to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the full 16 filing fee by October 17, 2025. (ECF No. 5.) The first deadline expired without an updated 17 address from Plaintiff, and his mail from the Court is being returned as undeliverable. 18 (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 6.) 19 I. DISCUSSION 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 21 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate… 22 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 23 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 24 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 25 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 26 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 27 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 28 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 4 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 5 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 6 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 8 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s 9 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 10 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 11 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 12 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 13 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 14 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 15 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 16 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 17 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 18 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 19 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 20 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 21 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 22 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 23 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 24 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 25 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed without 26 the ability for the Court and the defendants to send Plaintiff case-related documents, 27 filings, and orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. 28 But without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach 1 || Plaintiff is low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and further 2 || squander the Court's finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 3 || alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. || Il. CONCLUSION 5 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 6 || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 7 || prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this 8 || Court’s August 20, 2025 order. 9 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 10 || No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 11 If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and 12 || provide the Court with his current address. 13 14 DATED THIS 30! Day of September 2025. AGA 16 MIRANDA M. DU 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28