Alexander v. NDOC et al
Filing
8
ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to pay the $400.00 filing fee in compliance with 6 Order. Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel is Denied as moot. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 5/16/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
DEMETRI ALEXANDER,
7
8
9
Case No. 2:15-cv-02244-APG-PAL
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
NDOC et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
13
a state prisoner.
On April 7, 2016, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s
14
application to proceed in forma pauperis because Plaintiff had “three strikes” pursuant
15
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Dkt. #6 at 1-2). The Court informed Plaintiff that if he did not
16
pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within thirty days of the date of that order, the Court
17
would dismiss the action without prejudice. (Id. at 2). The thirty-day period has now
18
expired and Plaintiff has not paid the full filing fee of $400.00.
19
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the
20
exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .
21
dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829,
22
831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s
23
failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with
24
local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for
25
noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.
26
1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);
27
Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply
28
with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply
with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal
for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to
obey a 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; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy
favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone,
833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,
weigh in favor of dismissal.
The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also
weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.
See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors
in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his
failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of
alternatives” requirement.
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33;
Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to pay the full filing
fee within thirty days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that this action will be
dismissed without prejudice unless Plaintiff pays the $400.00 filing fee in full within thirty
(30) days of entry of this order.” (Dkt. #6 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning
that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to pay the full
filing fee within thirty days.
27
28
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on
Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $400.00 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s April 7,
2016, order.
It is further ordered that the motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. #2) is denied
as moot.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
Dated: May 16, 2016.
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?