Boyd v. County of Las Vegas, Nevada et al
Filing
3
ORDER dismissing case without prejudice for failure to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/19/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
11
12
13
NICKI BOYD,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COUNTY OF LAS VEGAS, NEVADA,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_____________________________________)
2:14-cv-1658-GMN-VCF
ORDER
14
15
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a
16
county prisoner. On October 14, 2014, this Court issued an order denying the application to
17
proceed in forma pauperis, without prejudice, because the application was incomplete. (ECF
18
No. 2 at 1-2). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma
19
pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400.00 within thirty days from the date of that order. (Id.
20
at 2). The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed another application to
21
proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full filing fee, 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 may
25
dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to
26
obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-
27
54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
28
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 address);
3
Malone v. 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 for
5
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 another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee within
24
thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely
25
comply with this order, dismissal of this action may result.” (ECF No. 2 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff
26
had adequate warning that dismissal would result from her noncompliance with the Court’s order
27
to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee within thirty
28
days.
2
1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based
2
on Plaintiff’s failure to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing
3
fee in compliance with this Court’s October 14, 2014, order.
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
5
DATED this 19th day of November, 2014.
6
7
8
_________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?