Sharkey v. Nevada Department of Corrections

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 22, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00395
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 JAMES SHARKEY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00395-GMN-BNW

10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 11 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF 12 CORRECTIONS, et. al., Defendants. 13 14 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 15 1983 by a former state prisoner. On February 10, 2021, this Court ordered Plaintiff to 16 notify the Court within 30 days of his current address. (ECF No. 5). The thirty-day period 17 has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 19 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 20 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 21 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 22 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 23 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 24 with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 25 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 26 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring 27 pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 28 1 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson 2 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and 3 failure to comply with local rules). 4 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 5 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 6 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 7 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 8 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 9 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 10 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 11 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 12 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 13 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs 14 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 15 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy 16 favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor 17 of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 18 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 19 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 20 at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court 21 within thirty (30) days expressly stated that “failure to timely comply with this order will 22 result in dismissal of this action.” (ECF No. 5 at 21). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning 23 that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his 24 updated address within thirty (30) days. 25 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 26 Plaintiff’s failure to notify the Court within 30 days of his current address in compliance 27 with this Court’s February 10, 2021 order. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue any of his claims, 28 1 he must file a complaint in a new action. 2 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and 3 close this case. 4

5 DATED THIS 2 2 day of M a r c h 2021. 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28