Vontress v. Nevens et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. It is THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this courts May 19, 2015, order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that 1 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 6/23/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8

GEORGE LESLIE VONTRESS,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
D.W. NEVENS et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )

2:15-cv-060-JAD-GWF
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

9
10

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

11

prisoner. On May 19, 2015, this court issued an order dismissing the entire complaint with

12

leave to amend and directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint by June 18, 2015. (Doc.

13

4 at 9). The deadline has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or

14

otherwise responded to the court’s order.

15

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

16

that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.

17

Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court

18

may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure

19

to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

20

53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

21

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

27

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

28

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the
public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. Finally, a court’s

12

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

13

“consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at

14

132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended

15

complaint by June 18, 2015, expressly stated: “If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint

16

curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.”

17

(Doc. 4 at 9). Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

18

noncompliance with the court’s order to file an amended complaint by June 18, 2015.

19

It is THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based

20

on Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this court’s May 19, 2015,

21

order.

22
23

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is
DENIED as moot.

24

The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

25

Dated: June 23, 2015.

26
27

_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2