Curran v. Clark County et al

Filing 8

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Curran's failure to comply with this courts 12/20/16, 6 order. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/31/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Clifford C. Curran, 2:16-cv-01010-JAD-VCF 5 Plaintiff 6 v. 7 Clark County, et al., 8 Order Dismissing and Closing Case Defendants 9 10 On December 20, 2016, I dismissed Curran’s civil-rights complaint with leave to amend and 11 with detailed instructions for curing its deficiencies, and I directed him to file an amended complaint 12 by January 20, 2017.1 This deadline has expired, and Curran has not filed an amended complaint, 13 requested an extension to do so, or otherwise responded to my order. 14 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that 15 power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.2 A court 16 may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, 17 or failure to comply with local rules.3 In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these 18 grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) 19 the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 20 21 1 ECF No. 6 at 9. 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 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.4 2 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 3 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of 4 prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises 5 from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an 6 action.5 A court’s warning to a party that its failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal 7 satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of alternatives” requirement,6 and I expressly warned Curran 8 that failure to timely file an amended complaint would result in dismissal without prejudice and 9 without further notice.7 The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 10 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. Accordingly, 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice based on 12 Curran’s failure to comply with this court’s December 20, 2016, order. 13 The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. 14 Dated this 31st day of January, 2017. 15 _________________________________ _________________ _____ __ __ __ _ __________ _ Jennifer A. Dorsey fer A Dorsey r United States District Judge ed States District Judge tate D a ud d 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). 27 6 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 28 7 ECF No. 6 at 9. 26 Page 2 of 2

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?