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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?