Kurtze v. Lombardo et al

Filing 4

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Kurtze's failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Judge Koppe's 9/19/17 order. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly andCLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 10/27/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Giovanni Kurtze,
Plaintiff

2:17-cv-02428-JAD-NJK
Order Dismissing Case

v.
Joseph Lombardo, et al.,
Defendants
Pro se plaintiff and Clark County prisoner Giovanni Kurtze brings civilrights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a Clark County sheriff and three
Clark County Detention Center correctional officers, alleging illegal strip searches
and personal mail destruction.1 On September 19, 2017, Magistrate Judge Nancy
Koppe ordered Kurtze to file a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis
or pay the full $400.00 filing fee by October 19, 2017.2 The deadline has now
expired, and Kurtze has taken no action to comply with or otherwise respond to
Judge Koppe’s 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.3 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.4

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

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.5
The first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The risk-of-prejudice factor
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.6 Although the fourth factor weighs against dismissal, that
one factor is greatly outweighed by the others. Finally, a court’s warning to a party
that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the
“consideration of alternatives” requirement.7 Judge Koppe ordered Kurtze to file a
complete pauper application or pay the full filing fee by October 19, 2017, otherwise
“dismissal of this action may result.”8 Kurtze had adequate warning that dismissal
would result from his noncompliance with the court’s order.

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).

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.
See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at

1424.

ECF No. 3 at 2.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED
without prejudice based on Kurtze’s failure to file an application to proceed in forma

pauperis or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Judge Koppe’s September
19, 2017, order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and
CLOSE THIS CASE.
DATED: October 27, 2017.
_______________________________
_____________________
_ __________ _
_
Jennifer A. Dorsey
Dorsey
ennifer A. D s
n
United States District J
United States District Judge
ted
ist i