Jones v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 4

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file a signed amended complaint and another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $400 filing fee in compliance with th is Court's order dated 8/7/2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 10/16/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

PAUL JONES,

4
5
6
7

Case No. 2:20-cv-01450-RFB-NJK
Plaintiff

ORDER

v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants

8
9
10

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Clark County Detention Center, commenced this

11

action with an incomplete pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On

12

August 7, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a signed amended

13

complaint and denying the Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, without

14

prejudice, because the application was incomplete. (ECF No. 3 at 3-4). The Court

15

ordered Plaintiff to file a signed amended complaint and a complete application to

16

proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400 on or before October 6, 2020.

17

(Id. at 3). Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

local rules).

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable

15

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

16

Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by

17

the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party

18

that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration

19

of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33;

20

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a signed

21

amended complaint expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does

22

not file a signed amended complaint on or before October 6, 2020, the Court will dismiss

23

this action without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new case

24

number, when Plaintiff is able to file a signed amended complaint.” (ECF No. 3 at 3).

25

Additionally, the Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file another application to proceed in

26

forma pauperis or pay the full $400 filing fee on or before October 6, 2020 expressly

27

stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file a fully complete

28

application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents, or pay the full $400

-2-

1

filing fee for a civil action on or before October 6, 2020, the Court will dismiss this action

2

without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number,

3

when Plaintiff either has all three documents needed to file a complete application to

4

proceed in forma pauperis or pays the full $400 filing fee.” (Id. at 4). Therefore, the

5

Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with

6

the Court’s order.

7

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice

8

based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a signed amended complaint and another application to

9

proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $400 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s

10
11
12
13

order dated August 7, 2020.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter
judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 16, 2020

14
15

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-3-