Newton v. County of Clark Nevada et al

Filing 6

ORDER that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Newton's ability to refile her claims in a new, separate action based on her failure to comply with the 12/18/2017 order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/26/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Shelly J. Newton,

5

Plaintiff

6

Order Dismissing Case

v.

7

2:17-cv-03064-JAD-VCF

County of Clark Nevada, et al.,

8

Defendants

9
10

On December 18, 2017, I ordered pro se plaintiff Shelly Newton to file a fully completed

11

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $400 filing fee, and I gave her 30 days to do

12

so.1 That thirty-day period has now expired, and Newton has not filed a completed pauper

13

application, paid the filing fee, or otherwise responded to my order. I warned Newton that I

14

would dismiss this case if she failed to comply.2

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.4 In determining whether to

19

dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with

20
1

ECF No. 3.

22

2

Id.

23

3

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

24

4

21

25
26
27
28

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. 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).

1

local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious

2

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

3

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

4

availability of less drastic alternatives.5

5

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

6

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

7

unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.6 The fourth

8

factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal, and a court’s warning to a party

9

that her failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration-of-

10

alternatives” requirement.7 Newton was warned that her case would be dismissed if she failed to

11

file a completed pauper application or pay the $400 filing fee.8

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without

13

prejudice to Newton’s ability to refile her claims in a new, separate action based on her failure to

14

comply with my December 18, 2017, order.

15

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

16

DATED: January 26, 2018.

17

_______________________________
_______________________
_ ___________ __
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A Dorsey
.S. District Judge Jennifer A.
tr
tric dg e f
dg

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

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.
6

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

27

7

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

28

8

ECF No. 3.

26

2