Edmisten v. Yanagihara et al

Filing 4

ORDER that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file his current address with the Court in compliance with this Court's February 10, 2015, order. FURTHER ORDERED thay 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/17/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JUSTIN EDMISTEN,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:14-cv-1708-GMN-VCF
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
R. YANAGIHARA et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by

14

a county prisoner. On February 10, 2015, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach issued an order

15

directing Plaintiff to file his current address within the Court within 30 days from the date

16

of that order. (ECF No. 2 at 2). The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has

17

not filed his current address with the Court or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

18

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

19

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

20

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal

25

for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

26

856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule

27

requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal

28

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

1

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

2

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

alternatives” requirement.

20

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

21

address with the Court within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

22

that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, dismissal of this action may

23

result.” (ECF No. 2 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would

24

result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his current address within

25

thirty days.

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

26

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without

27

prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file his current address with the Court in

28

compliance with this Court’s February 10, 2015, order.

-2-

1
2
3
4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 1) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.
DATED 17th day of March, 2015.

6
7

Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

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

-3-