Ramirez v. Metro Police Department

— 1 — 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA — 3 — — 4 — 5 Denise Ramirez, Case No. 2:22-cv-02093-CDS-EJY 6 Plaintiff Order Closing Case 7 v. 8 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 9 Defendant — 10 — 11 On January 10, 2023, I adopted the report and recommendation of United States 12 Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah dismissing plaintiff Denise Ramirez’s complaint. ECF No. 4. 13 I gave Ramirez until January 30, 2023, to file an amended complaint along with a revised 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. My order explicitly warned Ramirez that failure to file 15 an amended complaint by that date would result in the action being dismissed “in its entirety 16 without prejudice.” Id. at 3. To date, Ramirez has neither filed an amended complaint nor filed 17 any motion to reconsider my prior order. Consequently, I consider the factors bearing on 18 whether to dismiss Ramirez’s claims for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the 19 court order. See, e.g., Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 , 642–43 (9th Cir. 2002) (describing the five 20 factors relevant to such a determination and concluding that a district court did not abuse its 21 discretion in dismissing plaintiff’s claims for failure to comply with a prior order). 22 First, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal. 23 Yourish v. Calif. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Second, the court’s need to manage its 24 docket also weighs in favor of dismissal. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d 639 (“It is incumbent upon the 25 Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants[.]”) 26 Third, there is almost no risk of prejudice to the parties for dismissal as I am dismissing 1 Ramirez’s claims without prejudice such that she may be able to refile in the future1. My 2 decision should not impact the defendant(s)’ ability to proceed to trial nor should it threaten to 3 interfere with the rightful decision of the case. Fourth, there are no less drastic alternatives 4 which suffice in this instance, as dismissal without prejudice is the most mild action that I can 5 take with respect to Ramirez’s claims. Fifth and finally, public policy favoring disposition of 6 cases on their merits weighs against dismissal, as it always does. Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 7 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). 8 Weighing the factors described above, I find that dismissal without prejudice is 9 appropriate with respect to Ramirez’s suit. She has not given any indication that she intends to 10 prosecute this suit or comply with the court’s prior orders. She did not file objections to Judge 11 Youchah’s report and recommendation, nor did she respond to my order accepting the R&R. 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this suit shall be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk 13 of Court shall close this case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED: March 8, 2023 — 16 — 17 _________________________________ Cristina D. Silva — 18 — United States District Judge — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — 26 1 Ramirez is advised that if she chooses to refile this action, she will be required to pay any associated filing fees or comply with this district’s requirements for applying in forma pauperis.