Briscoe v. Eiucher et al

Filing 20

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court's 1/9/19 order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 11 the pending Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that the Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/6/2019.; Case terminated. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7

JERROD BISCOE,

8

Case No. 2:18-cv-00463-RFB-GWF
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

9
KENTON EIUCHER et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12

This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On

13

January 9, 2019, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file his updated address

14

with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 18). The thirty-day period has now

15

expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded to the

16
17
18
19
20

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

21
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance
22
23
24
25
26

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

27

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and

28

failure to comply with local rules).

1

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey

2

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors:

3

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to

4

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring

5

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.

6

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;

7

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,
weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs
in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy
favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor
of dismissal discussed herein. 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. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779
F.2d at 1424. The Court’s January 9, 2019 order expressly stated: “Plaintiff must file with
the Court written notification of his current mailing address within 30 days or risk dismissal

19

of this action under LR IA 3-1.” (ECF No. 6 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning

20

that dismissal could result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his

21

updated address within thirty (30) days.

22

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice

23

based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s

24

January 9, 2019 order.
IT IS FURETHER ORDERED that the pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is

25
26

denied as moot.

27

///

28

///
2

1
2
3
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that the Clerk of Court will enter judgment
accordingly and close this case.
6th
DATED this ____ day of March, 2019.

5
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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