Miller v. Ernest

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA — 3 — JARRETT A. MILLER, Case No. 2:21-cv-01443-GMN-VCF — 4 — Plaintiff ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING 5 v. CASE AND DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT 6 ERNEST, (ECF Nos. 1, 1-3) 7 Defendant — 8 — 9 Plaintiff Jarrett A. Miller brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 10 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High 11 Desert State Prions. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4). On February 11, 2022, this Court ordered Miller 12 to update his address by March 13, 2022. (ECF No. 5). Miller neither updated his address 13 by that deadline nor filed any document like a motion to extend that deadline. 14 I. DISCUSSION 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 16 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 17 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 , 831 18 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 19 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 20 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 21 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 22 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 23 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 24 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 25 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 26 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 27 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 2 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Miller’s 3 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 4 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 5 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 6 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 7 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 8 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 9 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 10 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 11 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 12 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 , 643 & n.4 (9th 13 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 14 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 15 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 16 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 17 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 18 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 19 F.2d 1421 , 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed without 20 the ability for the Court and the defendants to send Miller case-related documents, filings, 21 and orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But 22 without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach Miller 23 is low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the 24 Court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given 25 these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 26 II. CONCLUSION 27 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 28 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 2 Court’s February 11, 2022, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 3 accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed 4 case. If Miller wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and 5 provide the Court with his current address. 6 It is further ordered that Miller’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 7 No. 1) and his motion to use the Court’s electronic service system (ECF No. 1-3) are 8 denied as moot. — 9 — — 10 — 11 DATED THIS 6 day of April, 2022. 12 ________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Judge — 13 — United States District Court — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —