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)

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