Harden v. NDOC Education ESP et al

Filing 5

ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on the plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with Magistrate Judge Koppe's April 20, 2018 order. The plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 ) is denied as moot. It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 5/29/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

HAROLD D HARDEN,
v.
NDOC EDUCATION ESP,

Case No. 2:17-cv-01381-APG-NJK
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 April 20, 2018, Magistrate Judge Koppe ordered the plaintiff to file his updated
address with the Court within 30 days. ECF No. 3 at 2. The 30-day period has now expired, and
the plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded to Judge Koppe’s order.

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

failure to comply with local rules).

24
25
26
27
28

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 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,
1

1
2
3

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.
Here, the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation

4

and the Court’s interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor—

5

risk of prejudice to Defendants—also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

Koppe’s order requiring the plaintiff to file his updated address within 30 days expressly stated:

13

“It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss

14

this case without prejudice.” ECF No. 3 at 2. Thus, the plaintiff had adequate warning that

15

dismissal would result from his noncompliance with Judge Koppe’s order to file his updated

16

address.

17
18
19
20
21

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on the plaintiff’s
failure to file an updated address in compliance with Magistrate Judge Koppe’s April 20, 2018
order. The plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
DATED THIS 29th day of May, 2018.

22
23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2