Mohammad v. Clark County Detention Center et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Without Prejudice. It is further ordered that the clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/3/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

KHALID MOHAMMAD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER et )
al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )

2:14-cv-1290-JCM-VCF
ORDER

14
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a
15
former inmate. On October 23, 2014, this court issued an order dismissing the district
16
attorney, the public defender, and the Clark County Detention Center from this case with
17
prejudice but granting plaintiff leave to amend the allegations in his complaint regarding his
18
pretrial detainee status and failure to protect during imprisonment. (ECF No. 2 at 7). The
19
court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of entry of
20
that order. (Id.). The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended
21
complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.
22
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of
23
that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.
24
Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court
25
may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure
26
to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
27
53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
28
F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring

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

3

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

4

failure to 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)

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-

12

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, 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 amended complaint within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER

24

ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined

25

in this order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.” (ECF No. 2 at 8). Thus, plaintiff

26

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

27

order to file an amended complaint within thirty days.

28

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiff’s
2

1
2

failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this court’s October 23, 2014, order.
It is further ordered that the clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly.

3
4

December day of December, 2014.
DATED: This _____3, 2014.

5
6

_________________________________
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