Vanness v. 15CF67AD

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 10, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00075
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 CRAIG ALAN VANNESS, Case No. 3:25-CV-00075-CLB1

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 6 v.

7 15CF67AD,

8 Defendant.

9 10 On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint with the Court. (ECF No. 11 3-1.) However, Plaintiff did not submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 12 Thus, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either submit an IFP application or pay the full filing 13 fee by Friday, March 7, 2025. (ECF No. 5.) The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure 14 to timely comply with the order would subject his case to dismissal without prejudice. (Id.) 15 To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with 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). 27

1 This action was assigned to the undersigned pursuant to First Amended General 1 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey acourt order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: (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; 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 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 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 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See 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 of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a Court’s warning to a party that her failure to obey 16 | the Court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 18| at 1424. In the order directing Plaintiff to submit an IFP application or pay the full filing 19| fee, the order expressly stated that if Plaintiff failed to timely comply, the case would be subject to dismissal without prejudice. (ECF No. 5.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning 21| that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order. 22 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice; and, 24 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly. 26 DATED: March 10, 2025 » 27 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE