Zuniga v. Hartman

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 18, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00003
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JONATHAN ZUNIGA, Case No. 3:24-cv-003-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 HARTMAN, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Jonathan Zuniga brings this civil rights action under 42 13 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 14 incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 6.) At the time Zuniga 15 initiated this case, he applied to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners (“IFP”). (ECF No. 16 1.) In the Court’s June 12, 2024, screening order, the Court deferred a decision on the 17 application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5 at 1.) The screening order also 18 imposed a 90-day stay and the Court entered a subsequent order in which the parties 19 were assigned to mediation by a court-appointed mediator. (ECF Nos. 5, 13.) Zuniga was 20 released from custody before mediation. (ECF No. 23.) 21 After mediation concluded, the Court denied Zuniga’s IFP application (ECF No. 1) 22 as moot. (ECF No. 26 at 1.) The Court also ordered Zuniga to either file an application to 23 proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner within 30 days or pay the full filing fee of 24 $405.00. (Id.) The Court provided Zuniga with the approved form for filing an application 25 to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner and the document entitled information for 26 filing an in forma pauperis application. (Id.) Finally, the Court warned Zuniga that failure 27 to comply with the order would result in the action being dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 28 2.) 2 Though the time for doing so has passed, Zuniga has neither filed the application to 3 proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner nor paid the full filing fee. 4 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 5 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 6 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 7 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 8 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 9 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 10 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 11 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 12 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 13 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 14 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 15 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 16 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 17 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 18 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 19 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Zuniga’s 20 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 21 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 22 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 23 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 24 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 25 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 26 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 27 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 28 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 1 || does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 2 || Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of’ earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 3 || “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 4 || order as satisfying this element[,]’ i-e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 5 || with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 6 || Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 7 || case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 8 || F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 9 || unless Zuniga either files a fully complete non-prisoner in forma pauperis application or 10 || pays the $405.00 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order 11 || setting another deadline. Previously, the Court warned Zuniga on two separate occasions 12 || that he must change his address, or the complaint would be dismissed. (ECF Nos. 9, 19.) 13 || But the reality of repeating ignored orders is that it often only delays the inevitable and 14 || squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this 15 || case will be an exception; there is no hint that Zuniga needs additional time or evidence 16 || that he did not receive the Court’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 17 || alternative given these circumstances. The fifth factor thus favors dismissal. Having 18 || thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they support dismissal. 19 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 20 || Plaintiff Jonathan Zuniga’s failure to file a complete non-prisoner in forma pauperis 21 || application or pay the full $405.00 filing fee in compliance with the Court’s November 1, 22 || 2024, order. 23 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly 24 || close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Jonathan 25 || Zuniga wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 26 DATED THIS 18" Day of December 2024.

28 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE