Vanderlin v. Reno Police Department

Opinion

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 TIMOTHY JAMES VANDERLIN, Case No. 3:23-cv-00158-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v. 9 RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 On September 25, 2023, Vanderlin was directed to file an amended complaint 14 within the next 30 days. (ECF No. 11.) That deadline has now long since expired, and 15 Vanderlin has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s 16 order. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 18 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 19 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th 20 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to 21 prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 22 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 23 with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal 24 for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 25 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 26 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 27 Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 28 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 2 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to 3 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several 4 factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 5 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 6 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 7 alternatives. See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; 8 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. And 9 before dismissing a pro se civil rights complaint, “the district court must provide the 10 litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the litigant 11 uses the opportunity to amend effectively.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261. 12 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 13 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 14 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs 15 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 16 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. 17 See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public 18 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors 19 in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his 20 failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 21 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; 22 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Vanderlin to file an amended 23 complaint within 30 days expressly stated, “If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended 24 complaint within the 30 days, the action may be dismissed.” (ECF No. 11 at 5.) Thus, 25 Vanderlin had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance 26 with the Court’s orders to file an amended complaint. 27 The Court also adequately provided Vanderlin with notice of the deficiencies in 28 his complaints. Vanderlin has now been afforded two opportunities to amend his 1 || complaint. (ECF Nos. 7, 11.) Both times, the Court plainly laid out the deficiencies in 2 || Vanderlin’s complaints such that he could correct them and gave him an additional 30 3 || days to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 6 at 5-9; 7 at 2-3; 11 at 2-4.) Those same 4 || orders reiterated that Vanderlin’s failure to comply would result in dismissal. (ECF Nos. 5 || 7 at 3-4; 11 at 5.) This “demonstrated more than adequate sensitivity” to Vanderlin’s 6 || inexperience as a pro se litigant. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261. 7 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 8 || Plaintiff's failure to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s 9 || order. 10 DATED THIS 9" day of January 2024.

12 MIRANDA M. DU 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28