Villanueva v. Daniels

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA [3] 4 JOSE LUIS VILLANUEVA, Case No. 2:21-cv-01436-CDS-DJA 5 Plaintiff ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE v. [6] 7 CHARLES DANIELS, et al., 8 Defendants [9] 10 Pro se plaintiff Jose Villanueva brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 11 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while he was incarcerated at High 12 Desert State Prison. On November 8, 2022, the Court ordered Villanueva to file an updated 13 address with the Clerk of the Court and to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for a 14 non-prisoner by December 8, 2022. ECF No. 17. The Court warned Villanueva that the failure to 15 comply with the order could result in this action being dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 2 . The 16 deadline has expired, and Villanueva did not file his updated address with the Court, file an 17 application to proceed in forma pauperis for a non-prisoner, or otherwise respond to the order. 18 I. DISCUSSION 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 20 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 21 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss 22 an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 23 King, 856 F.2d 1439 , 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local 24 rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 25 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 26 whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 27 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the 28 risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 2 Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 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 dismissing Villanueva’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 until 21 and unless Villanueva files his updated address with the Court and an application to proceed in 22 forma pauperis for a non-prisoner, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another 23 deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable 24 and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case 25 will be an exception. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 26 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. Having thoroughly considered these dismissal 27 factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of dismissal. [28] 2 It is therefore ordered that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on 3 plaintiff Jose Villanueva’s failure to file his updated address with the Court and file an 4 application to proceed in forma pauperis for a non-prisoner in compliance with this Court’s 5 November 8, 2022, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 6 this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If plaintiff Villanueva wishes 7 to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 8 The Clerk of the Court is directed to (1) electronically send this order to plaintiff 9 Villanueva at the address listed for him with the Court in the ordinary course, and (2) send a 10 courtesy copy of this order to: Jose Villanueva, care of New Hope/Well Care, 1308 Fremont 11 Street, Las Vegas, NV 89101. [12] 13 DATED: December 12, 2022 [15] Cristina D. Silva 16 United States District Judge