Kurtze v. Lombardo
Filing
7
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court's 4/4/2018 order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 1 , 3 , 4 Plaintiff's app lications to proceed in forma pauperis are denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 5/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
GIOVANNI KURTZE,
10
Case No. 2:17-cv-01055-RFB-CWH
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
11
JOE LOMBARDO,
12
Defendants.
13
14
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
15
a former inmate. On April 4, 2018, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file his
16
updated address with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) The thirty-day
17
period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise
18
19
20
21
22
responded to the Court’s order.
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the
exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .
dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure
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
25
26
27
28
with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal
for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856
F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring
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
1
1
v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and
2
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
9
10
11
12
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,
weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs
in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
13
14
15
16
17
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”
18
requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779
19
F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the
20
Court within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that failure to comply
21
with this order will result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed without
22
prejudice.” (ECF No. 5 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would
23
result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address within
24
thirty (30) days.
25
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice
26
based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s April
27
4, 2018 order.
28
2
1
2
3
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 1, 3, 4) are denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment
accordingly and close this case.
5
DATED this 11th day of May, 2018.
6
7
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
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
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?