Woods v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 4

ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court's 3 Order. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 2/22/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 10 11 12 13 IAN A. WOODS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF NEVADA et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ___________________________________ ) 2:16-cv-01169-GMN-PAL ORDER 14 This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a 15 former state prisoner. On January 11, 2017, this Court issued an order denying the application 16 to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot. (ECF No. 3 at 1). The Court directed 17 Plaintiff to file fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay 18 the full filing fee of $400.00 within thirty (30) days from the date of that order. (Id. at 2). The 19 thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis for non-prisoners, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 22 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 23 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court 24 may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure 25 to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 26 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 27 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 28 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 1 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for 2 failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 3 (dismissal 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 a 5 court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) 6 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 7 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 8 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d 9 at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260- 10 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, weigh 13 in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 14 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in 15 filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 16 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition of cases 17 on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. 18 Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in 19 dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 20 Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring 21 Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing 22 fee within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does 23 not timely comply with this order, dismissal of this action may result.” (ECF No. 3 at 2). Thus, 24 Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the 25 Court’s order to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the 26 full filing fee within thirty (30) days. 27 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s 28 failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing 2 1 2 fee in compliance with this Court’s January 11, 2017, order. It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 3 4 22 DATED: This _____ day of February, 2017. 5 6 7 _________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?