U'Nika J. Queeney Yahral v. Frankie Cooper, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02042
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 U'Nika J. Queeney Yahral, 5 Case No. 2:24-cv-02042-CDS-MDC

6 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO vs. DISMISS CASE 7 Frankie Cooper, et al., And 8 Defendant. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S IFP 9 APPLICATION (ECF NO. 18) AS MOOT 10

11 Pro se plaintiff U’Nika J. Queeney Yahral filed a renewed Application to Proceed In Forma 12 Pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 18. The Court previously (1) screened and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint 13 without prejudice and (2) denied plaintiff’s IFP application as incomplete. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff did not 14 file an amended complaint within thirty days and the time to do so has passed. 15 For the reasons discussed in the Court’s screening order (ECF No. 19), the Court 16 RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED. The Court DENIES plaintiff’s renewed IFP 17 application (ECF No. 18) as moot. 18 I. DISCUSSION 19 A. Legal Standard 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that 21 power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. 22 23 Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action 24 based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. Malone v. U.S. Postal 25 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply 1 2 with local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) 4 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) 5 the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 6 and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 7 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 8 1987)). 9 B. Plaintiff’s IFP Application 10 The Court previously denied plaintiff’s IFP application as incomplete. ECF No. 17. The Court 11 ordered that plaintiff must (1) answer all questions on the long form with detailed explanations about her 12 income and expenses. Id. Plaintiff filed the long form, but she still does not explain how she pays her 13 expenses given that she claims she has no income. ECF No. 18 at 5. The Court denies the renewed IFP 14 15 application as moot, however, because plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s Order, as she has not 16 filed an amended complaint pursuant to the Court’s previous Order. ECF No. 17. 17 C. Plaintiff’s Complaint 18 The Court screened and dismissed plaintiff’s Complaint and gave her an opportunity to file an 19 amended complaint. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. The Court thus finds that plaintiff has 20 not complied with the Court’s Order. 21 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 22 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of the plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff has 23 chosen not to comply with this Court’s Order. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also 24 weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable 25 2 delay in prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 1 2 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the 3 factors favoring dismissal. 4 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to 5 correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. Yourish v. Cal. 6 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 7 the party has disobeyed a Court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 8 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases 9 that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the Court’s Order as 10 satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled with the warning of 11 dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every 12 sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case but must explore possible and meaningful 13 alternatives.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 14 15 Litigation cannot progress without a plaintiff’s compliance with Court Orders. The only 16 alternative is to enter another order setting another deadline. Issuing another order, however, will only 17 delay the inevitable and further squander the Court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a 18 meaningful alternative given these circumstances. The fifth factor favors dismissal. After weighing 19 these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of dismissal. For the reasons discussed 20 in this Order and the Court’s earlier screening Order (ECF No. 17), plaintiff’s case should be dismissed. 21 Plaintiff will also not be prejudiced because she has an opportunity to object to this report and 22 recommendation. 23 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED AND ORDERED: 24 The Court RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s U’Nika J Queeney Yahral’s case be DISMISSED. 25 3 1 The Court ORDERS that plaintiff's renewed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF 2 || No. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT. 3 IT ISSO RECOMMENDED AND ORDERED. é 7 a 4 DATE: October 21, 2025. Lfr~l / 5 fob / \

4 L United Sta ‘Magist ate Judge

9 NOTICE 10 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 11 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 12 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 13 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 4 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452,

9 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written notification with the

50 court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s 31 || attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this 22 || rule may result in dismissal of the action. 23 24 25