Stevens v. Aranas et al

Filing 9

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Arizmendi's failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and an amended complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgmen t accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send Jose Cruz Arizmendi a copy of this order at the address located in ECF No. 3. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 9/15/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

THEODORE STEVENS,

5
6
7

Case No. 2:17-cv-01373-APG-PAL
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
ROMERO ARANAS et al.,

8

Defendants.

9
10

On August 9, 2017, I reopened this case and granted Jose Cruz Arizmendi 30 days to file

11

both his own individual application to proceed in forma pauperis and an amended complaint

12

substituting himself as the plaintiff. ECF No. 7 at 3. The 30-day period has now expired, and

13

Arizmendi has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, has not filed an amended

14

complaint, and has not otherwise responded to my order.

15

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

16

that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.

17

Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may

18

dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey

19

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th

20

Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-

21

61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of

22

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply

23

with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal

24

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order);

25

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

26

failure to comply with local rules).

27

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

28

order, or failure to comply with local rules, I must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest

1

in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

2

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

3

(5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d

4

at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

5

In this case, the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this

6

litigation and my interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor,

7

risk of prejudice to the defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of

8

injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court

9

or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth

10

factor—public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the

11

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

12

to obey an order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement.

13

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. My order

14

requiring Arizmendi to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and an amended complaint

15

expressly stated “that, if Jose Cruz Arizmendi fails to timely comply with this order, the Court will

16

dismiss this case without prejudice and close the case.” ECF No. 7 at 3. Arizmendi had adequate

17

warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with my order within 30 days.

18
19

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Arizmendi’s
failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and an amended complaint.

20

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

21

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall send Jose Cruz Arizmendi a copy of this

22
23

order at the address located in ECF No. 3.
DATED THIS 15th day of September, 2017.

24
25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

-2-