Wide v. State of Nevada et al
Filing
4
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 9/25/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
ANTHONY E. WIDE, JR.,
10
11
12
13
Case No. 2:17-cv-02142-APG-GWF
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
STATE OF NEVADA et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
16
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
17
a state prisoner. On August 14, 2017, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file
18
a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of
19
$400.00 within thirty (30) days from the date of that order. (ECF No. 3 at 2). The thirty-
20
day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma
21
pauperis, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.
22
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the
23
exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .
24
dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
25
(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure
26
to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.
27
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance
28
with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal
1
for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856
2
F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring
3
pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833
4
F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson
5
v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and
6
failure to comply with local rules).
7
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey
8
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors:
9
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
10
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
11
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.
12
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;
13
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
14
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in
15
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,
16
weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs
17
in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
18
unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See
19
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy
20
favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor
21
of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey
22
the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”
23
requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779
24
F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma
25
pauperis or pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER
26
ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, dismissal of this action
27
may result.” (ECF No. 3 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would
28
result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an application to proceed in
-2-
1
forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days.
2
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on
3
Plaintiff’s failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee
4
in compliance with this Court’s August 14, 2017, order.
5
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
6
Dated: September 25, 2017.
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?