Sean Mitchell Jr. v. Timothy, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01246
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * SEAN MITCHELL JR., Case No. 2:24-cv-01246-RFB-MDC 6

7 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE

8 v.

9 TIMOTHY, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 On March 30, 2025, this Court warned Plaintiff that failure to file a complete in forma 13 pauperis application or pay the filing fee on or before April 25, 2025 would result in the summary 14 dismissal of this case with prejudice. That deadline expired without payment of the filing fee, a 15 complete in forma pauperis application, or other response from Plaintiff. Accordingly, for the 16 reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses this action with prejudice. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 18 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 19 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 20 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 21 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 22 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 23 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In 24 determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 25 public’s 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 cases on 27 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 28 Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). ] The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff's case. The third 3 | factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 4| injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 5 | or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 6 | factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 7 | the factors favoring dismissal. 8 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 9 | tocorrect the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 10| v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 11 | alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every 13 | sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and 14| meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because 15 | this Court cannot operate without collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without 16) Plaintiffs compliance with the Court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 17 | another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the inevitable and further 18 | squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will 19 | bean exception. So, the fifth factor favors dismissal. 20 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 21 | favor of dismissal. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with 22 | prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 23 DATED: January 7, 2026. 24 25 AS 26 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28

+