Bundy v. United States of America inc et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE With Prejudice. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 3/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Ryan C. Bundy,
Order Dismissing Case
United States of America Inc., et al.,
Three months ago, I ordered pro se plaintiff Ryan Bundy to update his mailing address
because correspondence in this case was being returned as undeliverable.1 I also warned him that
his “[f]ailure to do so” by January 18, 2018, would “result in DISMISSAL of this case with
prejudice without further prior notice.”2 Bundy has failed to do so.
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.3 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.4 In determining whether to
dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with
local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious
ECF No. 18.
Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 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 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,
1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the
availability of less drastic alternatives.5
I find that the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The risk-of-prejudice factor
also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.6 Although I
recognize that Bundy had been actively involved in defending himself in the criminal prosecution
that led to his detention that underlies this civil action, that case was dismissed more than two
months ago,7 and he still has not updated his address. The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by
the factors in favor of dismissal, and 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.8
Bundy received a bolded, capitalized warning that his case would be dismissed if he did not
correct his on-file mailing address, but he did not heed that warning.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice
based on Bundy’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with my December 18, 2017,
order. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS
DATED: March 9, 2018.
United States District Judge
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.
See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
See 2:16-cr-0046-GMN-PAL, ECF No. 3117.
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.
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?