Holley v. State of Nevada

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 ALONZO HOLLEY, Case No. 2:19-cv-00724-RFB-EJY 7 Plaintiff ORDER 8 v. 9 STATE OF NEVADA et al., 10 Defendants — 11 — 12 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 13 by a state prisoner. On July 23, 2020, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint with 14 leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days (ECF No. 7). 15 The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or 16 otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 18 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 19 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 20 dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey 21 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th 22 Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 23 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 24 amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 25 dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 26 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal 27 for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 28 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 1 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 2 order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s 3 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 4 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 5 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831 ; 6 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24 ; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130 ; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 ; Ghazali, — 7 — 46 F.3d at 53 . 8 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 9 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 10 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, 11 since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 12 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th 13 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is 14 greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning 15 to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the 16 “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 ; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132 - 17 33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424 . The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended 18 complaint within thirty days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to file an 19 amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be dismissed with 20 prejudice for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 7 at 8). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 21 dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended 22 complaint within thirty days. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on 2| Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s July 23, 2020, 3 order. 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 5 accordingly. — 6 — 7 DATED: September 30, 2020 — 8 — — 9 — 40 United Statésbistrict Judge — 11 — — 12 — — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 — -3-