Mosley v. Neven

Filing 4

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice. Denying 1 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 7/11/2014. (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
13

TARRELL MOSLEY,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DWIGHT NEVEN,
)
Defendant.
)
)
___________________________________ )

2:14-cv-627-APG-GWF
ORDER

14
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a state
15
prisoner. On June 4, 2014, Magistrate Judge Foley issued an order notifying Plaintiff that the
16
Court would dismiss the action with prejudice unless Plaintiff filed his updated address with the
17

Court within thirty (30) days pursuant to Nevada Local Special Rule 2-2.1 (Dkt. #2 at 1-2). The

18
thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an updated address or otherwise
19
responded to the Court’s order.
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
23
may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure
24
to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
25
53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
26
F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring
27
28

1

According to the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) inmate database,
Plaintiff has been released from prison. Plaintiff’s last known address is at High Desert State
Prison.

1

amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal

2

for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);

3

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

4

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

5

(dismissal 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 a

7

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the

8

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;

9

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

10

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831;

11

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61;

12

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, weigh in

15

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

16

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

17

filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542

18

F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition of cases

19

on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein.

20

Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in

21

dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;

22

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring

23

Plaintiff to file an updated address within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER

24

ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file his current address within (30) days from the date of entry

25

of this order, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice.” (Dkt. #2 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff

26

had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s

27

order to file an updated address within thirty days.

28
2

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on

2

Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s June 4, 2014 order.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #1) is

4
5
6
7

DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
Dated: July 11, 2014.
DATED: July 7, 2014.

8
9

_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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