Bauman v. Nevada Dept of Corrections et al

Filing 5

ORDER that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Bauman's failure to file an updated address in compliance with the 3 order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 2/22/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Case No.: 2:18-cv-00109-JAD-VCF
Douglas Bauman,

5
6
7

Plaintiff
Order Dismissing Case
v.
Nevada Dept of Corrections, et al.,

8

Defendants

9
Plaintiff Douglas Bauman brings this civil-rights case under § 1983 for events he alleges

10

11 occurred during his incarceration. On January 15, 2019, I ordered Bauman to file an updated
1
12 address with the court by February 15, 2019. I expressly warned him that his failure to timely
2
13 comply with the order would result in the dismissal of this case. The deadline has passed, and

14 Bauman has not filed an updated address, so I dismiss this case.
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of

15

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

17 court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action,
4
18 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. In determining whether to

19
20

ECF No. 3 (order).

2

Id.

3

21

1

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

22
23
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
25 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
26 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.
27 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).
28
1
24

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.5
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.6 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.7 Bauman was warned that his
13 case would be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to update his address by February 15,
14 2019.6 So, Bauman had adequate warning that his failure to update his address would result in
15 this case’s dismissal.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without

16

17 prejudice based on Bauman’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this court’s
18 January 15, 2019, order; and
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22
23

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.

24
6

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

7

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

6

ECF No. 3 (order).

25
26
27
28

2

1

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

2 CASE.
3

DATED: February 22, 2019
_______________
_ _ __ _ __
________________________________
t Judge Jennifer A
Judg
ni r
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3