Sledge v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 10

ORDER. It is ordered that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this Court's 3/17/2021, order and for failure to state a claim. It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close this case and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/26/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

TIMOTHY SLEDGE,

4
5
6
7

Plaintiff

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER

v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT et al.,
Defendants

8
9

Case No. 2:20-cv-00325-GMN-BNW

This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 by a county inmate. On March 17, 2021, the Court issued an order dismissing the
first amended complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file a second
amended complaint within 30 days. (ECF No. 7 at 8). The 30-day period has now
expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an second amended complaint or otherwise responded
to the 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.
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for
noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.
1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of
complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 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) (affirming
dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,
1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and 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

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint

19

within 30 days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to file a second

20

amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, the Court will dismiss

21

this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 7 at 9). Thus, Plaintiff had

22

adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s

23

order to file a second amended complaint within 30 days.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

-2-

1

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

2

Plaintiff’s failure to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s March

3

17, 2021, order and for failure to state a claim.

4
5

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close this case and enter judgment
accordingly.

6
7

26
DATED THIS ____ day of April 2021.

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-