Allison v. Clark County Detention Center

Filing 5

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court's ord er dated February 9, 2021. (ECF No. 3 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No additional documents will be filed in this closed case. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/26/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

RONALD ALLISON,

5
6
7
8

Case No. 2:21-cv-00168-GMN-DJA
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Defendant.

9
10

On February 9, 2021, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a complaint

11

and a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of

12

$402 on or before April 12, 2021. (ECF No. 3 at 2). On February 12, 2021, the Court

13

received a returned mail receipt indicating the Court's Advisory Letter at ECF No. 2 was

14

undeliverable. (ECF No. 4). The April 12, 2021 deadline has now expired and Plaintiff

15

has not updated his address with the Court or filed a complaint, an application to proceed

16

in forma pauperis, paid the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court's order.

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

local rules).

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

F.2d at 1424.

The fourth factor—public policy favoring

21

The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma

22

pauperis or pay the full filing fee on or before April 12, 2021 expressly stated: “IT IS

23

FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file a complaint and a fully complete

24

application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402

25

filing fee for a civil action on or before April 12, 2021, this case will be subject to dismissal

26

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

27

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

28

in forma pauperis or pays the full $402 filing fee." (ECF No. 3 at 3). Thus, Plaintiff had

-2-

1

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

2

to file a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402

3

filing fee on or before April 12, 2021.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice

5

based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a complaint and an application to proceed in forma

6

pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated February

7

9, 2021. (ECF No. 3).

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment

9

accordingly and close this case. No additional documents will be filed in this closed case.

10

April 26, 2021
DATED: _________________

11
12
13

GLORIA M. NAVARRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-3-

___