Iden v. Director of Accounting NDOC

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA [3] * * * 4 Richard Iden, Case No. 2:23-cv-00216-CDS-NJK 5 Plaintiff v. Order Dismissing and Closing Case [6] Director of Accounting NDOC, et al., [7] Defendants [9] 10 Pro se plaintiff Richard Iden brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 11 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High Desert 12 State Prison. ECF No. 1-1. On February 23, 2023, this court ordered Iden to file a fully complete 13 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before April 24, 2023. 14 ECF No. 3. The court warned Iden that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a fully 15 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402 16 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. Id. at 2 . That deadline expired and Iden did not file a 17 fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise 18 respond. 19 I. DISCUSSION 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 21 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 22 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss 23 an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 24 King, 856 F.2d 1439 , 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local 25 rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 26 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 27 whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s 28 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 2 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. 3 Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 4 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 5 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Iden’s claims. The third 6 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 7 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 8 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 9 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 10 the factors favoring dismissal. 11 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to 12 correct the party’s failure that brought about the need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. 13 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives 14 before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, [15] 291 F.3d 639 , 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal 16 before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson 17 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this court cannot operate without collecting 18 reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without a plaintiff’s compliance with court orders, 19 the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But issuing a second order 20 will only delay the inevitable and further squander the court’s finite resources. Setting another 21 deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors 22 dismissal. Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 23 dismissal. 24 II. CONCLUSION 25 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Richard 26 Iden’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 27 filing fee in compliance with this court’s February 23, 2023, order. The Clerk of Court is directed 28 to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now1 || closed case. If Richard Iden wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case 2 || and either pay the required filing fee or properly apply for in forma pauperis status. 3 DATED: June 28, 2023 -) J, / [4] 5 Lo Cristina D. Silva 6 Ubited States District Judge [10] ll