Johnson v. Nevada Dept of Corrections et al

Filing 6

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Courts June 9, 2021 order. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue any claims, he must file a complaint in a new action with the required fee or application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 7/16/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

DAMON R JOHNSON,

10
11

Case No. 2:21-cv-00307-RFB-VCF
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

12

NEVADA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by

17

a former state prisoner.

On June 9, 2021, this Court issued an order denying the

18

application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot because Plaintiff was no

19

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

20

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

21

$402.00 within thirty (30) days from the date of that order. (Id.) The thirty-day period has

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal

3

for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

4

F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring

5

pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833

6

F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson

7

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and

8

failure to comply with local rules).

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;

15

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

16

In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in

17

expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,

18

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

19

in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of

20

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

21

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order,

-2-

1

dismissal of this action may result.” (ECF No. 5). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning

2

that dismissal could result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an

3

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

4

thirty (30) days.

5

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on

6

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

7

pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court’s June 9, 2021 order. If Plaintiff wishes

8

to pursue any claims, he must file a complaint in a new action with the required fee or

9

application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners.

10
11
12

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and
close this case. No other documents shall be filed in this case.
DATED THIS 16th day of July, 2021.

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-3-