Smith v. Bureau of Prisons

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 8, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01655
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4 JOHNNY SMITH, Case No. 2:22-cv-01655-CDS-NJK

5 Plaintiff ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE v. 6

7 BUREAU OF PRISON, et al.,

8 Defendants 9 Plaintiff Johnny Smith initiated this action by filing a document styled “Request for 10 TRO.” ECF No. 1. Smith brings this action against the Bureau of Prisons and the Warden of the 11 United States Penitentiary facility in Victorville, California. See id. On October 4, 2022, the Court 12 entered an order requiring Smith to show cause in writing within 30 days “why this action 13 should not be dismissed without prejudice for a lack of jurisdiction.” ECF No. 3. That deadline 14 expired and Smith did not respond to the Court’s show-cause order. And the Court’s mail to 15 Smith has been returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 4. 16 I. DISCUSSION 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 dismiss 20 an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 21 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local 22 rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 23 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 24 whether to 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, (3) the 26 risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 27 merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. 28 Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 2 the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissing this action. 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 9 used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See 10 Yourish 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 12 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive 13 force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives 14 prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial 15 granting of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have 16 been “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 17 finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 18 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until 19 and unless Smith responds to the Court’s show-cause order, the only alternative is to enter a 20 second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it 21 often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. And without an 22 updated address for Smith, the likelihood that the second order would even reach him is low. 23 Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth 24 factor favors dismissal. 25 II. CONCLUSION 26 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 27 favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based 28 on Smith’s failure to respond to the Court’s October 4, 2022, show-cause order and for failure to 2 No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Smith wishes to pursue his claims, 3 he must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the filing fee or properly apply to proceed 4 in forma pauperis. 5 It is further ordered that Smith’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 1) is 6 denied as moot. 7 8 DATED: November 8, 2022

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