Fredrickson v. High Desert State Prison et al

Filing 9

ORDER dismissing with prejudice this action for Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address; denying as moot ECF No. 1 IFP application; vacating the 1/6/2017 Inmate Early Mediation Conference; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/8/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10
11
12

NICHOLAS FREDRICKSON,

Case No. 2:16-cv-00451-MMD-NJK
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

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

15

a former state prisoner. On October 6, 2016, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff

16

to file his updated address with the Court on or before October 28, 2016. (ECF No. 5 at

17

1-2). The deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an updated address with

18

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

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, 831

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 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,

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an updated address on or before

22

October 28, 2016 expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his

23

updated address with the Court on or before Friday, October 28, 2016. If Plaintiff fails to

24

timely comply with this order, the undersigned [magistrate judge] will recommend

25

dismissal of this case with prejudice.” (ECF No. 5 at 3). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate

26

warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file

27

an updated address.

28

///

1

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on

2

Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s October 6,

3

2016, order.

4
5
6
7
8

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 inmate early mediation conference scheduled for
January 6, 2017 (ECF No. 8) is vacated.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.

9
10

DATED THIS 8th day of November 2016.

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

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE