Clemons v. Williams, et al

Filing 3

ORDER Dismissing Case. Case terminated. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 11/16/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

De’Marian A. Clemons,

5

Plaintiff

2:16-cv-00737-JAD-VCF
6

v.

7

Brian Williams, et al.,

8

Order Dismissing and Closing Case

Defendants

9
10

On October 5, 2016, I denied Clemons’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because

11

Clemons has, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated or detained in a facility, brought an

12

action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.1 I gave

13

Clemons 30 days to pay the $400 filing fee in full or face dismissal of this action. The deadline to

14

pay the filing fee has expired, and Clemons has not paid the filing fee or requested an extension to do

15

so.

16

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that

17

power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.2 A court

18

may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order,

19

or failure to comply with local rules.3 In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these

20
21
1

ECF No. 2.

2

Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

22
23
24
25
26
27

3

See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local
rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply
with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir.
1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court
apprised of address); Malone v. 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).

28
Page 1 of 2

1

grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2)

2

the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

3

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.4

4

The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the

5

court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of

6

prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises

7

from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an

8

action.5 A court’s warning to a party that its failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal

9

satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of alternatives” requirement.6 The fourth factor—the public

10

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

11

dismissal. Accordingly,

12
13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of
Court is instructed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

14

Dated this 16th day of November, 2016.

15

_________________________________
_______________________
_ _______
__
_ _
Jennifer A. Dorsey
nifer Dorsey
fe
e
e
United States District Judge
Judge
ited States
tate
tate
u

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

4

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.

27

5

See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).

28

6

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.
Page 2 of 2