Stevens v. Aranas et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:17-cv-01373-APG-PAL
ROMERO ARANAS et al.,
On August 9, 2017, I reopened this case and granted Jose Cruz Arizmendi 30 days to file
both his own individual application to proceed in forma pauperis and an amended complaint
substituting himself as the plaintiff. ECF No. 7 at 3. The 30-day period has now expired, and
Arizmendi has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, has not filed an amended
complaint, and has not otherwise responded to my 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. 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).
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court
order, or failure to comply with local rules, I must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest
in expeditious 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. 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 this case, the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this
litigation and my interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor,
risk of prejudice to the defendants, 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. 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 an 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. My order
requiring Arizmendi to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and an amended complaint
expressly stated “that, if Jose Cruz Arizmendi fails to timely comply with this order, the Court will
dismiss this case without prejudice and close the case.” ECF No. 7 at 3. Arizmendi had adequate
warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with my order within 30 days.
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.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 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.
DATED THIS 15th day of September, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?