Ramsey v. Clark County Detention Center

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA [3] 4 RHONDA RAMSEY, Case No. 2:22-cv-01959-CDS-VCF 5 Plaintiff ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE v. [6] 7 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., [8] Defendants [10] 11 Plaintiff Rhonda Ramsey brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress 12 constitutional violations that she claims she suffered while incarcerated at the Clark County 13 Detention Center (“CCDC”). ECF No. 6. On January 9, 2023, I ordered Ramsey to file an 14 amended complaint within 30 days from the date of that order. ECF No. 5 at 7. I warned Ramsey 15 that the action could be dismissed if she failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline. Id. 16 at 8. That deadline expired and Ramsey did not file an amended complaint, move for an 17 extension, or otherwise respond. 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 Ramsey’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 Ramsey files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order 22 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays 23 the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not 24 indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Ramsey needs additional time 25 or evidence that she did not receive my screening order. Setting another deadline is not a 26 meaningful alternative given these circumstances. Thus, the fifth factor favors dismissal. [28] 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 3 dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 4 Ramsey’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with my January 9, 2023, order. 5 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 6 documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Ramsey wishes to pursue her claims, she 7 must file a complaint in a new case. [8] 9 DATED: February 14, 2023 [11] UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE