Williams v. Union Federal Credit Union

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 THOMAS LAMONT WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:22-cv-00472-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. [8] UNION FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, et al., [9] Defendants. [10] 11 On January 11, 2023, the Court granted Defendant Union Federal Credit Union’s 12 motion for more definite statement and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 13 within 14 days. (ECF No. 14.) After that deadline had long passed and Plaintiff failed to 14 file an amended complaint, the Court issued another order on March 10, 2023 directing 15 Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s prior order to file an amended complaint and giving 16 him until March 27, 2023 to do so. (ECF No. 15.) That deadline has now expired, and 17 Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets, and “[i]n the 19 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 20 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 , 831 21 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 22 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 23 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 24 with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 25 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 26 F.2d 1439 , 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring 27 pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 28 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. 2 to comply with local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 4 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 8 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831 ; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 9 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 ; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 . 10 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 11 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 12 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 13 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 14 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 15 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring 16 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 17 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 18 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 19 requirement. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 ; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 ; Henderson, 779 20 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s latest order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 21 expressly stated: “The Court will give Plaintiff until March 27, 2023 to comply with the 22 Court’s order to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s 23 order will result in dismissal of this action.” (ECF No. 15.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 24 warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s orders to file 25 an amended complaint. 26 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 27 Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s orders. 28 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 1 DATED THIS 28% Day of March 2023. 3 ee MIRANDA M. DU 4 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE