Chounlaboudy v. Core Civic

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [6] DISTRICT OF NEVADA [7] * * * [8] SOULIDAO CHOUNLABOUDY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01378-GMN-BNW [9] Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 CORE CIVIC, et. al., Defendants. [12] 13 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14 1983. On January 22, 2021, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file his 15 updated address with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 5.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded [16] to the Court’s order. [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 [24] for 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 Service, 833 27 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson [1] v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and [2] failure 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 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 11 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 12 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs 13 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 14 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy [15] favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor [16] of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey [17] the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” [18] requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 ; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 [19] F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the [20] Court within thirty (30) days expressly warned Plaintiff that, if he failed to timely comply [21] with the order, the Court would dismiss this case without prejudice. (ECF No. 5 at 2). [22] Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance [23] with the Court’s order to file his updated address within thirty (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 January 22, [26] 2021 order. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue any of his claims, he must file a complaint in a [27] new action. [1] It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) [2] is denied as moot. [3] It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and [4] close this case. No further documents shall be filed in this closed case. [6] DATED THIS 1 day of M a r c h 2021. [7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE