Thomas Rios v. Clark, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00529
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 THOMAS RIOS, Case No. 2:25-cv-00529-ART-BNW 3 Plaintiff, ORDER 4 v.

5 CLARK, et al.,

6 Defendants.

7 8 Plaintiff Thomas Rios brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 9 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated 10 at High Desert State Prison. (ECF No. 5.) On September 2, 2025, this Court 11 entered an order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by October 2, 12 2025. (ECF No. 4.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the action could be dismissed 13 if he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline. (Id. at 7–8.) That 14 deadline expired and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, move for an 15 extension, or otherwise respond. 16 DISCUSSION 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 18 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 19 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 20 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 21 failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 22 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with 23 local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 24 U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for 25 failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss an action 26 on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 27 1 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) 2 the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition 3 of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See 4 In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) 5 (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 6 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 7 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 8 dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 9 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 10 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 11 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 12 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 13 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 14 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 15 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 16 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 17 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 18 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 19 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 20 “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted 21 pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as 22 satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 23 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 24 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 25 finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 26 alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and unless Plaintiff files 1 || an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 2 || another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often 3 || only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The 4 || circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is 5 || no hint that Plaintiff needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive 6 || the Court’s screening order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 7 || alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 8 || II. CONCLUSION 9 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 10 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 11 || dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to file an amended 12 || complaint in compliance with this Court’s September 2, 2025, order. The Clerk 13 || of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 14 || documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his 15 || claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 16 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis 17 || (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot. 18 DATED: October 16, 2025. 19

21 ANNER TRAUM 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28