EMRIT v. SOUTHERN NEVADA REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY et al

Filing 20

ORDER dismissing with prejudice this action based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court's order. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/6/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

2:16-cv-02701-MMD-VCF
Case No. 2:17-cv-00103-MMD-CWH

RONALD SATISH EMRIT,
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

v.
11
12
13

SOUTHERN NEVADA REGIONAL
HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

On October 30, 2017, plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint by

16

November 22, 2017. (ECF No. 19.) That deadline has has now expired, and Plaintiff has

17

not filed an amended complaint 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 for

25

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

27

requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal

28

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court

1

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of

2

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

5

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need

6

to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

7

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

8

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833

9

F.2d at 130; 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 defendant, also weighs in

13

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.

15

See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor ─ public

16

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits ─ is greatly outweighed by the factors

17

in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure

18

to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

19

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33;

20

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended

21

complaint within fifteen (15) days expressly stated: “Failure to file an amended complaint

22

with thirty (30) days may result in dismissal of this action with prejudice.” (Dkt. no. 6.)

23

Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from Plaintiff’s

24

noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1
2
3

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on
Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s order.
DATED THIS 6th day of December 2017.

4
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3