Fullre v. State of Nevada

Filing 4

ORDER that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Fullre's ability to file a complaint in a new, separate case. FURTHER ORDERED that 1 Fullre's application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/2/2018., Case terminated. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Kevin Fullre,

5

Plaintiff

6

Order Dismissing Case

v.

7

2:17-cv-02889-JAD-NJK

State of Nevada, et al.,

8

[ECF No. 1]

Defendants

9
10

Pro se petitioner Kevin Fullre filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, but he

11

failed to file an accompanying complaint.1 Magistrate Judge Koppe ordered Mr. Fullre to file a

12

complaint by December 21, 2017, and warned him that failure to do so may result in his case

13

getting dismissed.2 That deadline has passed and Fullre has still not filed a complaint.

14

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of

15

that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal” of a case.3 A

16

court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a

17

court order, or failure to comply with local rules.4 In determining whether to dismiss an action

18

for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the

19

court must consider several facts: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;

20
21

1

See generally docket report case no. 2:17-cv-02889-JAD-NJK.

2

ECF No. 3.

3

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

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

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).

1

(2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the

2

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

3

alternatives.5

4

I find that the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The risk-of-prejudice factor

5

also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of

6

unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.6 A court’s

7

warning to a party that failing to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the

8

consideration-of-alternatives requirement,7 and Fullre was expressly warned that dismissal could

9

result if he failed to file a complaint by December 21, 2017. Although the fourth factor weighs

10

against dismissal, it is greatly outweighed by those favoring dismissal.

11
12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice to Fullre’s ability to file a complaint in a new, separate case.

13
14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Fullre’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
[ECF No. 1] is DENIED as moot.

15

DATED: January 2, 2018.

16

_______________________________
______________________
_ _ ___ __ __ __
__
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A Dorsey
Distric Judge Jennifer A.
t ic
ict
ic
if

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

5

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.

27

6

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

28

7

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