Hogue v. Thomas et al
Filing
5
ORDER denying as moot 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.; Case terminated. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 5/15/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
DAVID HOGUE,
v.
OFFICER THOMAS et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01582-APG-PAL
Plaintiff,
ORDER
Defendants.
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
a former county inmate. On April 4, 2017, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to
file his updated address with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 3 at 2). The
thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or
otherwise responded to the Court’s order.
18
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the
19
exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .
20
dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
21
(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure
22
to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.
23
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance
24
with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal
25
for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856
26
F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring
27
pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833
28
F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson
1
1
2
v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and
failure to comply with local rules).
3
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey
4
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors:
5
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
6
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
7
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.
8
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;
9
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
10
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in
11
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,
12
weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs
13
in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
14
unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See
15
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor
of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey
the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”
requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779
F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the
Court within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff
fails to timely comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.”
(ECF No. 3 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from
his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address within thirty (30)
days.
25
26
27
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on
Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s April 4, 2017,
order.
28
2
1
2
3
It is further ordered the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is
denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
4
5
Dated: May 15, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
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?