Proctor v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Filing 21

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiffs failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Courts December 7, 2015, order. It is further ordered that 8 motion to dismiss is deemed MOOT. It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/3/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

JEFFREY SPENCER PROCTOR,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 2:15-cv-01343-RFB-GWF

ORDER

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

Plaintiff to file an updated address within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER

22

ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this

23

action without prejudice.” (ECF No. 19 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that

24

dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an updated

25

address within thirty days.

26

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

27

Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s December 7, 2015,

28

order.
2

1

It is further ordered that the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) is deemed MOOT.

2

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

3
4

DATED: This 3rd day of March, 2016.

5
6
7

_________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3