Sanchez v. Dreesen et al
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED without prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee as ordered. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 9/8/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)
Case 2:21-cv-00732-JAD-NJK Document 10 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4 Vito Sanchez,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00732-JAD-NJK
F. Dreesen, et. al.,
and Closing Case
Plaintiff Vito Sanchez brings this civil-rights lawsuit to redress constitutional violations
10 that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. On July 14, 2021, this
11 Court ordered the plaintiff to either pay the $402 filing fee or file a complete in forma pauperis
12 application by August 30, 2021. 1 On July 28, 2021, the plaintiff filed an incomplete application
13 to proceed in forma pauperis. 2 Plaintiff's incomplete application did not include a financial
14 certificate with an inmate account statement for the previous six-month period or, alternatively, a
15 declaration detailing any efforts he took to acquire such financial documents from prison
16 officials. The August 30, 2021, deadline expired without a fully complete application or
17 payment of the filing fee.
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of
19 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 3 A
20 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a
ECF No. 8.
ECF No. 9.
Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
Case 2:21-cv-00732-JAD-NJK Document 10 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 3
1 court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 4 In determining whether to dismiss an action
2 on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious
3 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
4 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the
5 availability of less drastic alternatives. 5
The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the
7 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. The
8 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a
9 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading
10 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. 6 A court’s warning to a party that its failure to
11 obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of
12 alternatives” requirement, 7 and that warning was given here. 8 The fourth factor—the public
13 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors
14 favoring dismissal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED without prejudice
16 based on the plaintiff’s failure to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay
17 the filing fee as ordered. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly
18 and CLOSE THIS CASE. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If
Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33.
ECF No 8 at 4.
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with
local rule); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for
21 failure to comply with court order).
Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
Case 2:21-cv-00732-JAD-NJK Document 10 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 3
1 Vito Sanchez wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case, and he must
2 either pay the $402 filing fee or file a complete in forma pauperis application in that new case.
Dated: September 7, 2021
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?