Lunford v. Davis

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 DARREN A. LUNFORD, Case No. 3:19-cv-00269-MMD-WGC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. [8] S. DAVIS, et. al., 9 Defendants. [10] 11 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12 1983 by a person incarcerated by the Nevada Department of Corrections. On December 13 2, 2019, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file his updated address with this 14 Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 3.) The 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has 15 not filed his updated address or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. The Court will 16 therefore dismiss this case. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 18 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 19 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 , 831 20 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 21 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 22 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 23 with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 24 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 25 F.2d 1439 , 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring 26 pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 27 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. 1 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure 2 to comply with local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 4 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 8 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831 ; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24 ; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130 ; 9 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 ; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 . 10 The Court finds that the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, 11 risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of 12 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by 13 the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 14 1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is 15 greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s 16 warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies 17 the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 ; Malone, 833 18 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424 . The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file 19 his updated address with the Court within 30 days expressly stated: “It is further ordered 20 that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case 21 without prejudice.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal 22 would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address 23 within 30 days. 24 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 25 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s December 2, 26 2019 order. 27 /// 1 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as {| moot. 3 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 5 DATED THIS 9" day of January 2020. 7 MRANDA DU 3 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE