Sanders v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 4

ORDER: This Action is Dismissed without Prejudice based on Plaintiff's Failure to File an an Updated Address with the Court. It Is Further Ordered that 1 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is Denied as Moot. Clerk of Court Shall Enter Judgment Accordingly. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 7/20/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ANDREW D. SANDERS,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 2:15-cv-128-RFB-NJK
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
STATE OF NEVADA et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

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

16

a county prisoner. On May 26, 2015, Magistrate Judge Koppe issued an order directing

17

Plaintiff to file an updated address with the Court within thirty days. (ECF No. 2 at 2).

18

The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an updated address

19

with this Court or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

28

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply

1

with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v.

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

weigh in favor of dismissal.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

alternatives” requirement.

22

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

23

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

24

that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the Court shall recommend

25

dismissal of this action without prejudice.”

26

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

27

order to file updated address within thirty days.

28

The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also

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

(ECF No. 2 at 2).

Thus, Plaintiff had

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on

-2-

1

Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address with the Court in compliance with this Court’s

2

May 26, 2015, order.

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.

6
7

DATED THIS 20th day of July, 2015.

8
___
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-3-