Clifford v. Mark Clifford Sykes Social Security Trust

Filing 4

ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 2/15/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4 Mark Clifford Sykes,
Plaintiff

5
6 v.

Case No.: 2:16-cv-00846-JAD-PAL

Order Dismissing Action

7 Mark Clifford Sykes Social Security Trust, et al.,
Defendants

8
9

On March 8, 2017, the court notified pro se plaintiff Mark Clifford Sykes that his case

10

11 would be dismissed if he did “not file a proper complaint” by March 21, 2017, “this case will be
1
12 closed without further notice.” Sykes filed nothing, let alone a complaint.

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

13

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

15 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a
3
16 court order, or failure to comply with local rules. In determining whether to dismiss an action

17 on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious
18 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
19
20
21
22

1

ECF No. 3 (emphasis original).

2

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

23
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
25 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
26 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.
27 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
1
24

1 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the
2 availability of less drastic alternatives.4
The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the

3

4 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of
5 prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises
6 from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or
7 prosecuting an action.5 A court’s warning to a party that its failure to obey the court’s order will
8 result in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of alternatives” requirement.6 And
9 that warning was given here.7 The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases
10 on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without

11

12 prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
13

Dated this 15th day of February, 2018.

14

________________________________
_______________
___ _ _ __ _
U.S. District Jud e Jennifer A. Dorsey
Judge n f
ict Ju
t Judg Jennifer

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

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.

5

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

6

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

7

ECF No. 3.

26
27
28

2