Silva v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 4

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address notification in compliance with this Courts 8/30/16 minute order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 1 the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 11/16/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

MATTHEW J. SILVA,

10
11

Case No. 2:16-cv-00348-RFB-NJK

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

12

STATE OF NEVADA et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

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

16

a state prisoner. On August 30, 2016, the Court issued a minute order directing Plaintiff

17

to file written notification of his change of address on or before September 30, 2016. (ECF

18

No. 3). The deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an updated address

19

notification 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, 831

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal

27

for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

28

F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring

1

pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833

2

F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson

3

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and

4

failure to comply with local rules).

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;

11

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

15

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. See

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”

21

requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779

22

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an updated address notification

23

with the Court on or before September 30, 2016, expressly stated: “if no action is taken

24

in this case on or before Friday, September 30, 2016, the Court will dismiss this action

25

with prejudice for failure to comply with Minutes of the Court and LSR 2-2.” (ECF No. 3).

26

Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance

27

with the Court’s order to file an updated address notification.

28

-2-

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice based

2

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

3

August 30, 2016 minute order.

4
5
6
7

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.

8
9

DATED this 16th day of November 2016.

10
11

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-3-