Scott v. Dyer

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 JAMES E. SCOTT, Case No. 3:23-cv-00295-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. [8] DYER, et al., [9] Defendants. [10] 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Plaintiff James Scott brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 13 redress constitutional violations that he alleges he suffered while incarcerated at Northern 14 Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 10.) On March 31, 2025, this Court ordered Scott 15 to either pay the full $402 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis 16 (“IFP”) for non-inmates by April 30, 2025. (ECF No. 15.) The Court warned Scott that the 17 action could be dismissed if he failed to timely comply. (Id.) That deadline expired and 18 Scott did not pay the filing fee, apply for IFP status, or otherwise respond. 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 21 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 22 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 , 831 23 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 24 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 25 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 26 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 27 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 28 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 2 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 3 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 4 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 5 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130 ). 6 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 7 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Scott’s 8 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 9 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 10 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 11 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 12 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 14 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 15 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 16 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 17 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 , 643 & n.4 (9th 18 Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 19 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 20 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed until 21 Scott addresses the matter of the filing fee, the only alternative is to enter a second order 22 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 23 delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 24 do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline is not a 25 meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. In 26 sum, having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 27 weigh in favor of dismissal. [28] 1 || Il. CONCLUSION 2 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 3 || James Scott's failure to address the matter of the filing fee in compliance with this □□□□□□□ 4 || March 31, 2025, order. 5 The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this 6 || case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Scott wishes to pursue 7 || his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the filing fee or apply to 8 || proceed in forma pauperis. 9 DATED THIS 13" Day of May 2025. [11] MIRANDA M. DU 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE