Mixon v. Brown et al

Filing 7

ORDER - This action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's April 27, 2017, Order (ECF No. 6 ). The Clerk is instructed to close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/8/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ANTONIO LEE MIXON, JR.,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 2:16-cv-02711-MMD-VCF
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
ELIZABETH BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

On April 27, 2017, this Court issued an Order dismissing the complaint with leave

16

to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty-three (33) days.

17

(ECF No. 6.) The thirty-three-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an

18

amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s Order.

19

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the

20

exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .

21

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

22

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure

23

to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.

24

See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance

25

with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for

26

failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

27

F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring

28

pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833

1

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

2

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

3

failure to comply with local rules).

4

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey

5

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors:

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;

10

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 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,

13

weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs

14

in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of

15

unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”

20

requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d

21

at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty

22

days expressly stated: “Plaintiff is given thirty three (33) days from the date the Clerk

23

mails Plaintiff a copy of this Order within which to file an amended complaint remedying,

24

if possible, the defects in the complaint explained in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

25

Recommendation. . . . Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint within the prescribed

26

time period will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice.” (ECF No. 6 at 2-3.) Thus,

27

Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with

28

the Court’s order to file an amended complaint within thirty-three (33) days.
2

1

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on

2

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s April 27,

3

2017, Oder.
Order.

4

The Clerk is instructed to close this case.

5
6

DATED THIS 8th day of June 2017.

7
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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