Whitfield v. Keast

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 5, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00123
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 ***

6 MICHAEL WHITFIELD, Case No. 3:23-cv-00123-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 J. KEAST, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Plaintiff Michael Whitfield brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 13 redress constitutional violations. (ECF No. 6.) On July 19, 2023, the Court issued a 14 screening order providing that Plaintiff must file an amended complaint within 30 days of 15 the date of that order. (ECF No. 5 at 9.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the action could 16 be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline. (Id.) That deadline 17 expired, and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or 18 otherwise respond. In addition, the Court issued an order on July 21, 2023, stating that 19 Plaintiff must update his address with the Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 9 at 1.) If Plaintiff 20 failed to update his address, the Court warned that the action could be dismissed without 21 prejudice. (Id.) The Court sent a courtesy copy of that order and all previous orders and 22 attachments to the prison in which Plaintiff was currently housed. (ECF No. 11.) The 23 deadline expired without Plaintiff filing an updated address. 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 26 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 27 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 28 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 2 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 3 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 4 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 5 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 6 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 7 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 8 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 9 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 10 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 11 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 12 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissing Plaintiff’s 13 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 14 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 15 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 16 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 17 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 18 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 19 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 20 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 21 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 22 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 23 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 24 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 25 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 26 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 27 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 28 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 2 unless Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order 3 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 4 delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 5 do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Plaintiff needs 6 additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening order. Setting 7 another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth 8 factor favors dismissal. 9 III. CONCLUSION 10 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 11 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 12 prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this 13 Court’s order and for failure to state a claim, along with Plaintiff’s failure to update his 14 address. 15 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 16 No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his 17 claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 18 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 19 No. 4) is granted. Plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial installment of the filing fee. 20 It is further ordered that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison 21 Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections will forward payments from 22 the account of Michael Whitfield, #1215111 to the Clerk of Court, 20% of the preceding 23 month’s deposits (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee 24 has been paid for this action. The Clerk of Court will send a copy of this order to the 25 Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk of Court will send a copy of this order to 26 the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections at 27 formapauperis@doc.nv.gov. 28 1 It is further ordered that, even though this action is dismissed, or is otherwise 2 || unsuccessful, the full filing fee will still be due, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by 3 || the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 4 DATED THIS 1 Day of September 2023.

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