Adamson v. Amati et al

Filing 79

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with 64 Order; directing Clerk to close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/22/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
§
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9

***
GREGORY K. ADAMSON,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 2:11-cv-00781-MMD-CWH
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

AMATI, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

On December 14, 2015, this Court issued an order giving Plaintiff up to and

16

including February 12, 2016, to file an amended proof of service for the following City

17

Defendants: Detention Officer Amati, Detention Officer Sergeant Bennell, Booking

18

Detention Officer Burke, Department of Detention and Enforcement Chief Karen M.

19

Coyne and Detention Classification Officer Roy. (Dkt. no. 64 at 9.) The deadline has

20

now expired and Plaintiff has not filed an amended proof of service.

21

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the

22

exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .

23

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829,

24

831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s

25

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with

26

local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for

27

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

28

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

1

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply

2

with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v.

3

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply

4

with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal

5

for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

6

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey

7

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several

8

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need

9

to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

10

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

11

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833

12

F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

13

In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in

14

expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,

15

weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs

16

in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of

17

unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.

18

See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor ― public

19

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits ― is greatly outweighed by the factors

20

in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure

21

to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

22

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33;

23

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s Order requiring Plaintiff to file Amended Proof

24

of Service by February 12, 2016, expressly stated: “It is further ordered that . . . Plaintiff

25

will be given up to and including February 12, 2016, to file amended proof of service on

26

the following City Defendants: Detention Officer Amati, Detention Officer Sergeant

27

Bennell, Booking Detention Officer Burke, Department of Detention and Enforcement

28

Chief Karen M. Coyne and Detention Classification Officer Roy. This deadline will not be
2

1

extended. Failure to file amended proof of service within this deadline will result in

2

dismissal of claims against these City Defendants.” (Dkt. no. 64 at 9.) Despite this clear

3

deadline, Plaintiff filed several motions to raise issues he previously raised, including a

4

request to extend the deadline for him to file a more thorough objection. (Dkt. nos. 67,

5

68, 69, 70, 71.) The Court denied these motions on March 2, 2016. (Dkt. no. 78.) Thus,

6

Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with

7

the Court’s Order.

8

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on

9

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order (dk. no. 64) directing Plaintiff to file

10
11
12

amended proof of service against the City Defendants by February 12, 2016.
The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DATED THIS 22nd day of March 2016.

13
14
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3