Hendrix v. Fishman

— 2 — 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 JAMAL DAMON HENDRIX, Case No. 3:23-cv-00536-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. — 8 — LORIN FISHMAN, et al., — 9 — Defendants. — 10 — 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Plaintiff Jamal Damon Hendrix brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 13 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at 14 Southern Desert Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1-1.) On December 22, 2023, this Court 15 ordered Hendrix to file an amended complaint by January 21, 2024. (ECF No. 3.) The 16 Court warned Hendrix that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended 17 complaint by that deadline. (Id. at 6.) 18 The Court’s order came back as undeliverable to Hendrix’s address, and according 19 to Nevada Department of Corrections records, Hendrix is no longer incarcerated. (ECF 20 No. 5.) Hendrix has not filed an updated address in this case. However, the Court is aware 21 that Hendrix filed a motion to dismiss a different case, and in that motion, Hendrix included 22 an updated address. (See Case No. 3:23-cv-00637-MMD-CLB, ECF No. 5.) In light of 23 that motion, the Court issued another order directing that a copy of the Court’s previous 24 order be sent to the address that Hendrix provided in his other case, and the Court 25 extended the deadline for Hendrix to file an amended complaint to February 23, 2024. 26 (ECF No. 7.) That extended deadline has expired, and Hendrix has not filed an updated 27 address in this case, file an amended complaint, moved for an extension, or otherwise 28 responded to the Court’s orders. The Court thus dismisses this case without prejudice. 2 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 3 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 4 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 , 831 5 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 6 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 7 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 8 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 9 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 10 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 11 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 12 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 13 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 14 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 15 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 16 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 17 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Hendrix’s 18 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 19 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 20 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 21 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 22 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 23 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 24 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 25 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 26 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 27 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 , 643 & n.4 (9th 28 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 1 || “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 2 || order as satisfying this element[,]” /e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 3 || with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 4 || Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 5 || case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 6 || F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 7 || unless Hendrix files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a third order 8 || setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 9 || delays the inevitable and squanders the Court's finite resources. The circumstances here 10 || do not indicate that this case will be an exception: Hendrix has not filed an updated 11 address, and it is not clear whether he has received the Court’s orders. Either he received 12 || the Court’s latest order and has not complied, or he is not able to receive mail at the only 13 || address the Court has for him. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative 14 || given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. Having thoroughly 15 || considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of dismissal. 16 || Ill. CONCLUSION 17 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 18 || Hendrix’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s December 19 || 22, 2023, and January 22, 2024, orders. 20 It is further ordered that Hendrix’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 21 || No. 1) is denied as moot. 22 The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this 23 || case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Hendrix wishes to 24 || pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 25 DATED THIS 3” Day of April 2024. — 27 — 28 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE