Villanueva v. Daniels

Opinion

4 Jose Luis Villanueva, Case No. 2:21-cv-01436-CDS-DJA

5 Plaintiff Order Dismissing and Closing Case v. 6

7 Charles Daniels, et al.,

8 Defendants

9 10 Plaintiff Jose Villanueva brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress 11 constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High Desert State 12 Prison. ECF No. 9. On January 26, 2023, I vacated my order dismissing and closing this action 13 and ordered Villanueva to either pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action or file a new fully 14 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis by March 24, 2023. ECF No. 21. Before that 15 deadline expired, Villanueva moved to extend it, arguing that he was waiting for prison officials 16 to provide his financial documents. ECF No. 23. On February 14, 2023, Magistrate Judge 17 Albregts granted Villanueva an extension and ordered him to either pay the required filing fee or 18 apply for in forma pauperis status by April 17, 2023. ECF No. 27. Judge Albregts warned Villanueva 19 that the action could be dismissed if he failed to timely comply. That deadline expired and 20 Villanueva did not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 22 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 23 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 24 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss 25 an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 26 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local 27 rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 28 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 2 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 3 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 4 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. 5 Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 6 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and 7 the court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissing Villanueva’s claims. The 8 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 9 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 10 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 11 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is 12 greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires the court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be 14 used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. See 15 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 16 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 17 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002)). Courts “need not exhaust every 18 sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and 19 meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this 20 court cannot operate without collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without 21 a plaintiff’s compliance with court orders, the only alternative is to enter a third order setting 22 another deadline. But issuing a third order will only delay the inevitable and further squander 23 the court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 24 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 26 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 27 dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on the 28 plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or seek to proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with the 2 judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed 3 case. If Jose Villanueva wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 4 DATED: April 25, 2023

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28