Fasthorse v. Gentry et al
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Fasthorse's failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Lavern C. Fasthorse,
Order Dismissing Case
Jo Gentry, et al.,
[ECF No. 1]
Pro se petitioner Lavern C. Fasthorse filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
without paying the $400 filing fee or filing a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Magistrate Judge Leen ordered Fasthorse to file a completed pauper application or pay the filing
fee within 30 days of her November 28, 2017, order, and she warned him that failure to do so
may result in dismissal of his case.1 That deadline expired more than a month ago, and Fasthorse
has not complied or otherwise responded to the Court’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.2 A
court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a
court order, or failure to comply with local rules.3 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
ECF No. 2.
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 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. 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).
court must consider several facts: (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
I find that 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.5 A court’s
warning to a party that failing to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the
consideration-of-alternatives requirement,6 and Fasthorse was expressly warned that dismissal
could result if he failed to pay the filing fee or file a completed pauper application by December
28, 2017. Although the fourth factor weighs against dismissal, it is greatly outweighed by those
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice based on Fasthorse’s failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay
the full filing fee.
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
DATED: January 10, 2018.
_ __________ _
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A Dorsey
. District Judge Jennifer A.
dg e f
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.
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.
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?