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)

Download PDF
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?