Leonard v. Haun

Filing 6

ORDER that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/24/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10
11
12

CLIFFORD LEONARD,

Case No. 2:13-cv-02287-MMD-VCF
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
DALLAS HAUN,
Defendant.

13
14
15

On June 18, 2014, this Court issued an order dismissing the complaint with leave

16

to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (Dkt.

17

no. 5 at 2.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an

18

amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended

22

complaint within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “Failure to file an amended complaint

23

with thirty (30) days may result in dismissal of this action with prejudice.” (Dkt. no. 5 at

24

2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

25

noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint within thirty (30)

26

days.

27

///

28

///

1

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on

2

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s June 18,

3

2014, order.

4

DATED THIS 24th day of July 2014.

5
6
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3