Roy D. Moraga v. Hartman, et al.

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 ROY D. MORAGA, Case No. 3:25-cv-00030-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. [8] HARTMAN, et al., [9] Defendants. [10] 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Roy Moraga brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 13 to redress constitutional violations he allegedly suffered while incarcerated at Northern 14 Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1-2.) On September 4, 2025, the Court denied 15 Moraga’s in forma pauperis application and ordered him to pay the full $405 filing fee by 16 October 4, 2025 because he had three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g). (ECF No. 6.) 17 The Court warned Moraga this action would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply. 18 (Id. at 3.) That deadline expired, and Moraga failed to pay the filing fee, move for an 19 extension, or otherwise respond. 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 22 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 23 appropriate … dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 24 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey 25 a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th 26 Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs 27 to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 28 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 2 in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 3 risk of prejudice to 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 5 Prod. Liab. 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 7 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Moraga’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 courts 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 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 realistically 21 proceed until and unless Moraga pays the $405 filing fee, the only alternative is to enter 22 a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is 23 that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the court’s finite resources. The 24 circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another 25 deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. Therefore, the fifth 26 factor favors dismissal. 27 III. CONCLUSION 28 Having thoroughly considered the above factors, the Court finds they weigh in 1 || favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice 2 || based on Moraga’s failure to pay the $405 filing fee in compliance with the Court’s order. 3 || The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 4 || documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Moraga wishes to pursue his claims, 5 || he must file a complaint in a new case and pay the full filing fee. 6 DATED THIS 14" Day of October 2025. 8 □□ MIRANDA M. DU 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE