Jones v. Offender Management Dept et al

Filing 7

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Jones's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this court's 8/2/18, order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 3 the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot; and The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 9/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8

Case No.: 2:17-cv-02258-JAD-VCF

Jason M. Jones,
Plaintiff
v.
Offender Management Dept., et al.,

Order Dismissing Action
[ECF No. 3]

Defendants

9
10

Plaintiff Jason M. Jones brings this civil-rights case under § 1983 for events he alleges

11

1
12 occurred during his incarceration at Southern Desert Correctional Center and Ely State Prison.

13 On August 2, 2018, the magistrate judge ordered Jones to file an updated address with the court
2
14 within 30 days. The magistrate judge expressly warned him that his failure to timely comply
3
15 with the order would result in the dismissal of this case. The deadline has passed, and Jones has

16 not filed an updated address.
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of

17

4
18 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. A

19 court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action,
5
20 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. In determining whether to

21
22

1

ECF No. 1-1 (complaint).

23

2

ECF No. 5 (order).

3

Id.

4

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

24
25
26

5

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
28 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–
1
27

1 dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with
2 local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious
3 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
4 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the
5 availability of less drastic alternatives.6
I find that the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving the

6

7 litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissing this case.
8 The risk-of-prejudice factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury
9 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or
10 prosecuting an action.7 The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of
11 dismissal, and a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in
12 dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement.8 Jones was warned that his case
13 would be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to update his address within 30 days.9 So,
14 Jones had adequate warning that his failure to update his address would result in this case’s
15 dismissal.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without

16

17 prejudice based on Jones’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this court’s
18 August 2, 2018, order;
19
20
21 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.
22 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).
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

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.

7

See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).

8

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

9

ECF No. 5 (order).
2

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is

2 DENIED as moot; and
3

The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS

4 CASE.
5
6

Dated: September 10, 2018
_________________________________
_________________
__ _
_
_ _
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey
ct Judge Jennifer A. D
udg
dge
fer

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3