Jaquan Collins v. Barks, et al.

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 JAQUAN COLLINS, Case No. 3:25-cv-00018-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. [8] BARKS, et al., [9] Defendants. [10] 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plantiff Jaquan Collins, who is currently incarcerated in the custody of the 13 Nevada Department of Corrections, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . On 14 September 4, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and ordered him to file an 15 amended Complaint within 90 days of the date. (ECF No. 6.) On October 28, 2025, United 16 States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney issued an order reminding Plaintiff of the 17 deadline to submit an amended complaint. (ECF No. 9.) The deadline to file an amended 18 complaint expired and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, 19 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 appropriate . . . 23 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 , 831 24 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 25 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 26 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 27 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 28 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 2 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 3 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 4 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 5 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 6 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130 ). 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 8 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s 9 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 10 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 11 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 12 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 13 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 14 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 15 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 16 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 17 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 18 does not satisfy this factor). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal 19 before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 20 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 , 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot 21 realistically proceed until and unless Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the only 22 alternative is to enter another order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating 23 an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite 24 resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: 25 there is no hint that Plaintiff needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the 26 Court’s screening order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given 27 these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. [28] 1 || Il. CONCLUSION 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 3 || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 4 || prejudice, based Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with the 5 || Court’s prior orders. (ECF Nos. 6, 9.) 6 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 7 || If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 8 DATED THIS 8" Day of December 2025. [10] MIRANDA M. DU 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE