Sayles v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE With Prejudice. Further ordered that the 7 inmate early mediation conference scheduled for October 18, 2019 is vacated. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/12/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

DARYL E. SAYLES,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7

Case No. 2:18-cv-01007-GMN-VCF
ORDER

v.
STATE OF NEVADA et al.,

8

Defendants.

9
10
11

This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

12

1983 by a former state prisoner. On August 5, 2019, this Court issued an order denying

13

the application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot because Plaintiff was

14

no longer incarcerated. (ECF No. 4 at 5). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully

15

complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing

16

fee of $400.00 within thirty (30) days from the date of that order. (Id.) The thirty-day

17

period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma

18

pauperis for non-prisoners, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s

19

order.

20

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

21

exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .

22

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

23

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure

24

to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.

25

See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for

26

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

27

1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of

28

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal

1

for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of

2

address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming

3

dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

4

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with

5

local rules).

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

13

Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously

14

resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of

15

dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of

16

dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay

17

in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air

18

West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring

19

disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of

20

dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey

21

the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”

22

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

23

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma

24

pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days expressly stated:

25

“It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to timely file an application to proceed in forma

26

pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee, the Court will dismiss this case with

27

prejudice.” (ECF No. 4 at 5-6). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would

28

result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an application to proceed in

-2-

1

forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days.

2

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on

3

Plaintiff’s failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or

4

pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court’s August 5, 2019, order.

5
6
7
8

It is further ordered that the inmate early mediation conference scheduled for
October 18, 2019 (ECF No. 7) is vacated.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall close the case and enter judgment
accordingly.

9
10

12
DATED THIS ____ day of September 2019.

11
12

Gloria M. Navarro, Judge
United States District Court

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-