Johnson v. Clark County Detention Center et al

Filing 13

ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiff's failure to file his updated address with the court in compliance with this court's October 16, 2015, order. FURTHER ORDERED that 7 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/30/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

RICHARD L. JOHNSON,

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

2:15-cv-00930-JCM-CWH
ORDER

14
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a
15
former county inmate. On October 16, 2015, this court issued an order directing plaintiff to file
16
his updated address with the court within 30 days from the date of that order. (ECF No. 12
17
at 1). The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an updated address
18
with this court or otherwise responded to the court’s order.
19
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of
20
that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.
21
Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court
22
may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure
23
to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
24
53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
25
F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring
26
amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal
27
for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of
28
address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1)

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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, weigh in

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein.

17

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

18

dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;

19

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order requiring

20

plaintiff to update his address with the court within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS

21

FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the Court will

22

dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 12 at 2). Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning

23

that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the court’s order to file his updated

24

address with the court within thirty days.

25

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

26

failure to file his updated address with the court in compliance with this court’s October 16,

27

2015, order.

28

It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is
2

1
2

denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly.

3
4

DATED: November 30, 2015.
This _____ day of November, 2015.

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