Thomas John Heyden v. Bill Ferguson

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 THOMAS JOHN HEYDEN, Case No. 3:25-cv-00609-ART-CSD 3 Plaintiff, ORDER 4 v.

5 BILL FERGUSON,

6 Defendant.

7 8 Plaintiff Thomas John Heyden brings this civil-rights action under 42 9 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On November 25, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff 10 to file a complaint by January 26, 2026. (ECF No. 4.) The Court warned Plaintiff 11 that the action would be subject to dismissal without prejudice if he failed to 12 timely comply. (Id.) That deadline expired without any response by Plaintiff. 13 DISCUSSION 14 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 15 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 16 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 17 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 18 failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 19 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with 20 local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 21 U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for 22 failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss an action 23 on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 24 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) 25 the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition 26 of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See 27 1 In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) 2 (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 4 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 5 dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 6 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 7 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 8 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 9 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 10 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 11 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 12 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 13 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 14 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 15 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 16 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 17 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 18 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 19 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed without a 20 proper complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another 21 deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the inevitable and 22 squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate 23 that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 24 alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 25 CONCLUSION 26 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 27 they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 1 || dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to submit a complaint in 2 || compliance with the Court’s order. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter 3 || judgment accordingly and close this case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, 4 || he must file a complaint and address the matter of the filing fee in a new case. 5 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis 6 || (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot. 7 DATED: February 9, 2026. 8 9 Ares jlosect dn 10 ANNER TRAUM 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28