Nathan L. Lomax v. Gabriela Najera, et al.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 NATHAN L. LOMAX, Case No. 2:24-cv-01344-GMN-DJA 4 Plaintiff ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE 5 v. 6 GABRIELA NAJERA, et al., 7 Defendants — 8 — 9 Plaintiff Nathan L. Lomax brings this civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 10 redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while incarcerated. On 11 September 29, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a Third Amended Complaint by 12 October 29, 2025. (ECF No. 10.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the action could be 13 dismissed if he failed to file a Third Amended Complaint by that deadline. (Id. at 8–9.) 14 That deadline expired and Plaintiff did not file a Third Amended Complaint, move for an 15 extension, or otherwise respond. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 17 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 18 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 19 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey 20 a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 , 1440–41 (9th 21 Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs 22 to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 23 Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 24 whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 25 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 26 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition 27 of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 28 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 1 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130 ). 2 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 3 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s 4 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 5 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 6 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 7 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 8 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 9 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 10 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 11 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 12 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 13 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 , 643 & n.4 (9th 14 Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 15 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 16 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically 17 proceed until and unless Plaintiff files a Third Amended Complaint, the only alternative is 18 to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored 19 order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. 20 The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no 21 hint that Plaintiff needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s 22 Screening Order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 23 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 24 It is therefore Ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 25 Plaintiff’s failure to file a Third Amended Complaint in compliance with this Court’s 26 September 29, 2025, Order and for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is kindly 27 directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue 28 his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 1 It is further Ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 2| No. 4)is granted. Plaintiff is not required to pay an initial installment fee, but the full $350 3 | filing fee will still be paid in installments under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , even though this action 4| is dismissed and is otherwise unsuccessful. 5 It is further Ordered that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Nevada Department of 6 | Corrections will forward payments from the account of NATHAN L. LOMAX, #1212555 7 | to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, at a rate of 20% of the 8| preceding month’s deposits (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) until the full 9| $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of Court is kindly requested to 10 | senda copy of this Order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office and to the Chief of 11| Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections at 12 | formapauperis@doc.nv.gov. — 13 — 14 DATED: November 6, 2025 Uj, 16 Gore Navarro, Judge 47 Unifeg States District Court — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 — -3-