Lacy v. Dzurenda et al
Filing
6
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's 6/25/19 order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close the case and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/31/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
RICHARD ALAN LACY,
4
5
6
Case No. 2:18-cv-00966-GMN-GWF
Plaintiff
ORDER
v.
JAMES DZURENDA et al.,
7
Defendants
8
9
This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
10
1983 by a former state prisoner. On June 26, 2019, the Court issued an order dismissing
11
the complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
12
within 30 days. (ECF No. 4 at 4-5). The 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has
13
not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.
14
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the
15
exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .
16
dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
17
(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure
18
to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.
19
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for
20
noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.
21
1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of
22
complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal
23
for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of
24
address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming
25
dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,
26
1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with
27
local rules).
28
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey
1
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors:
2
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
3
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
4
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.
5
See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at
6
130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
7
Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously
8
resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of
9
dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of
10
dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay
11
in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air
12
West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring
13
disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of
14
dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey
15
the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”
16
requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779
17
F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30
18
days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended
19
complaint curing the stated deficiencies of the complaint, the Court will dismiss this action
20
with prejudice.” (ECF No. 4 at 5). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal
21
would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint
22
within 30 days.
23
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on
24
Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s June 25,
25
2019, order.
26
///
27
///
28
///
-2-
1
2
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall close the case and enter judgment
accordingly.
3
4
31
DATED THIS ____ day of July 2019.
5
6
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?