Miller v. Williams et al

Filing 4

ORDER that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Miller's failure to pay the fee or submit a completed application in compliance with this Court's April 17, 2018, order; and The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 5/31/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
Jack Miller,

4

Case No.: 2:18-cv-00666-JAD-NJK

Plaintiff

5
6

v.

7

Order Dismissing Case

Brian Williams, et al.,
Defendants

8
9

Pro se plaintiff Jack Miller brings this civil-rights case under § 1983 for events that

10 allegedly occurred during his incarceration at the High Desert State Prison (HDSP). The court
11 directed Miller to file a fully completed application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $400
12 filing fee 1 and warned him that his case would be dismissed if he failed to do either of those
13 things. The deadline is two-weeks expired, and Miller has neither paid the fee nor filed a
14 complete pauper application.
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. 2 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. 3 In determining whether to
19 dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with
20 local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious
21
1

ECF No. 3.

2

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

22
23
3

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
with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey
25 comply Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–
41 (9th
requiring pro se plaintiffs to
keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.
26 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,
27 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
24

28
1

1 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
2 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the
3 availability of less drastic alternatives. 4
I find that the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving the

4

5 litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissing this case.
6 The risk-of-prejudice factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury
7 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or
8 prosecuting an action. 5 The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of
9 dismissal, and a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in
10 dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement. 6 Miller was warned that his
11 case would be dismissed if he failed to pay the fee or submit a completed application within 30
12 days. 7 So, Miller had adequate warning that his failure to pay the fee or submit a completed
13 application would result in this case’s dismissal.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without

14

15 prejudice based on Miller’s failure to pay the fee or submit a completed application in
16 compliance with this Court’s April 17, 2018, order; and
The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE

17

18 THIS CASE.
Dated: May 31, 2018

19

_______________________________
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey

20
21
22
23
24

4

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.
25
5
26 See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
6

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

7

ECF No. 3 (order).

27
28

2