Simmons v. State of Nevada

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA [3] 4 STEVEN ANTOINE SIMMONS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00367-CDS-VCF 5 Plaintiff, ORDER v. [6] 7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 8 Defendants. [9] 10 Plaintiff Steven Antoine Simmons brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 11 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Clark County 12 Detention Center. ECF No. 1-1. On June 27, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to update his 13 address by July 27, 2022. ECF No. 9. The Court warned Plaintiff that the action could be 14 dismissed if he failed to file an updated address by that deadline. Id. That deadline expired 15 without an updated address from Plaintiff, and his mail from the Court is being returned as 16 undeliverable. See ECF No. 10. 17 I. DISCUSSION 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets, and “[i]n the exercise of 19 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 20 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss 21 an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 22 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local 23 rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 24 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 25 whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 26 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 27 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 28 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. 2 Cir. 1987)). 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and 4 the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The 5 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 6 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 7 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 8 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is 9 greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 10 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be 11 used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See 12 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 13 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 14 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 , 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive 15 force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives 16 prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial 17 granting of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have 18 been “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 19 finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 20 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 21 without the ability for the Court and the Defendants to send Plaintiff case-related documents, 22 filings, and orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But 23 without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach Plaintiff is 24 low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the Court’s 25 finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 26 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. [28] 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 3 favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based 4 on Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s June 27, 2022, 5 order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No 6 other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he 7 must file a complaint in a new case and provide the Court with his current address. 8 DATED this 5th day of August, 2022. [10] UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE