Kurtze v. Williamson et al

Filing 9

ORDER that this action is dismissed with prejudice; Clerk directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/13/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

GIOVANNI K. KURTZE,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 2:17-cv-00209-MMD-VCF
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
WILLIAMSON, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by

16

an inmate in the custody of Lakes Crossing Center in Sparks, Nevada. On February 1,

17

2018, the Court issued an order dismissing the first amended complaint with leave to

18

amend and directed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF

19

No. 8 at 8.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a second

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

failure to comply with local rules).

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

13

In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in

14

expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint within

24

thirty (30) days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff chooses not to file a

25

second amended complaint curing the stated deficiencies of the first amended complaint,

26

the Court will dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 8

27

at 8.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

28

///
2

1

noncompliance with the Court’s order to file a second amended complaint within thirty

2

(30) days.

3

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

4

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s February 1,

5

2018, order and for failure to state a claim.

6

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.

7
8

DATED THIS 13th day of March 2018.

9
10

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-3-