England v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 31

ORDER that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court's June 4, 2018, order. Further ordered that all outstanding motions (ECF Nos. 15 , 20 ) are denied as moot. Further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 7/20/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

WILLIAM ENGLAND,

10

v.

11

STATE OF NEVADA et al.,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 2:17-cv-00714-APG-CWH
Plaintiff,

ORDER

Defendants.

This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
a former state prisoner. On June 4, 2018, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to
file his updated address with this Court on or before Friday, July 6, 2018. (ECF No. 25 at
1-2). The deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or
otherwise responded to the Court’s order.1

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
28

The Court notes that it has warned Plaintiff multiple times about updating his address
with the Court. (ECF Nos. 7, 9, 25).
1

1

1
2
3
4

pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833
F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson
v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and
failure to comply with local rules).

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy
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 on or before Friday, July 6, 2018 expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the Court will recommend dismissal
of this case with prejudice.” (ECF No. 25 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that
dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated
address on or before Friday, July 6, 2018.

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 updated address in compliance with this Court’s June 4, 2018,
order.

4
5
6

It is further ordered that all outstanding motions (ECF Nos. 15, 20) are denied as
moot.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

7
8

Dated: July 20, 2018.

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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