Tagle Sr v. Corrections Corporation America, et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 7/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
Victor Tagle, Sr.,

4

Case No.: 2:18-cv-00872-JAD-PAL

Plaintiff

5
6

v.

7

Order Dismissing Action

Corrections Corporation of America
Defendant

8
9

Pro se plaintiff Victor Tagle, Sr., brings this “tort action” for events that allegedly

10 occurred during his incarceration with the Nevada Department of Corrections. 1 On June 1, 2018,
11 I denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis because he has three strikes under 28
12 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and failed to demonstrate that he was under imminent danger of serious
13 physical injury. 2 I gave him until June 30, 2018, to pay the full $400 filing fee. 3 I expressly
14 warned him that his case would be dismissed if he failed to pay the filing fee by that deadline. 4
15 The deadline has passed, and Tagle has not paid the filing fee.
16

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

17 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 5 A
18 court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action,
19 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 6 In determining whether to
20
21

1

ECF No. 1-1 (tort action).

22

2

ECF No. 16.

23

3

Id.

24

4

Id.

25

5

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

26

6

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
27 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–
1988) (dismissal for failure
local rule requiring pro se
28 41 (9th Cir.apprised of address); Maloneto comply withService, 833 F.2d 128, 130 plaintiffs to
keep court
v. U.S. Postal
(9th Cir.
1

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. 7
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 its 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. 8 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. 9 Tagle was warned that his
13 case would be dismissed if he failed to pay the $400 filing fee in full by June 30, 2018. 10 So,
14 Tagle had adequate warning that his failure to pay the fee would result in this case’s dismissal.
15

Conclusion

16

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

17 prejudice based on Tagle’s failure to pay the full filing fee in compliance with this court’s June
18 1, 2018, order.
19 . . .
20
21
22
(dismissal for
court order); Henderson
23 1987)(9th Cir. 1986) failure to comply withprosecution and failure tov. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,
1424
(dismissal for lack of
comply with local rules).
24 7 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;
25 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
26
27
28

8

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

9

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

10

ECF No. 3.
2

1

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

2 THIS CASE.
3

Dated: July 9, 2018
_____________________
__ _________
_
___ ____ _
___ _
_______________________________
S. District Judge Jennif
.
tr
tr J g
n
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