Smith v. Russel

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 12, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00144
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ARON SMITH, Case No. 3:21-cv-00144-MMD-CLB

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

11 MIRANDA M-DU 12 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28