Rustam Shikhakmedov v. City of Winnemucca, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00477
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 RUSTAM SHIKHAKMEDOV, Case No. 3:24-cv-00477-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CITY OF WINNEMUCCA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Rustam Shikhakmedov brings civil rights claims against the City of 12 Winnemucca, the Winnemucca Police Department, Officer Richey, and Officer Ochoa to 13 redress violations of his constitutional rights that he claims he suffered resulting from a 14 traffic stop. (ECF No. 1-1 (“Complaint”).) Plaintiff submitted his Complaint to the Court on 15 October 16, 2024. The same day, the Court issued an advisory letter to Plaintiff informing 16 him of relevant local rules. (ECF No. 2.) On September 17, 2025, the Court issued an 17 order explaining that the case would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 18 prosecute under LR 41-1 if no action was taken by the same date. (ECF No. 3.) To 19 date, no action has been taken in this case. Thus, and as further explained below, the 20 Court will dismiss this case without prejudice. 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 22 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 23 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 24 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 25 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 26 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 27 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 28 Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 2 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 3 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition 4 of 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 this case. 9 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because 10 a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a 11 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). This action cannot realistically proceed until and unless 26 Plaintiff proceeds with his case. It has been over a year since Plaintiff has filed his 27 Complaint. He has taken no other actions in this case, nor has he responded to the 28 Court’s prior order. The circumstances here do not indicate that Plaintiff needs additional 1 time, nor is there evidence that he did not receive the Court’s orders. The Court could 2 || issue another order setting another deadline for Plaintiff to proceed with his case, but is 3 || not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, the fifth factor favors 4 || dismissal. 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—in its entirety—based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court’s order of 8 || September 17, 2025 and failure to prosecute his case. 9 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 10 || If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 11 DATED THIS 20" Day of October 2025.

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