Goodrum v. State of Nevada et al
Filing
18
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Courts 3 Order dated 7/ 12/2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , and 17 ) are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 11/18/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
MITCHELL KEITH GOODRUM,
4
5
6
7
Case No. 2:21-cv-01301-RFB-VCF
Plaintiff
ORDER
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants
8
9
On July 12, 2021, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a fully
10
complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or
11
before September 10, 2021. (ECF No. 3). On July 28, 2021, July 29, 2021, and August
12
3, 2021, Plaintiff filed three incomplete applications to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF
13
Nos. 5, 11, 15). Although Plaintiff was provided the correct forms for submission of his
14
application to proceed in forma pauperis with the Court's July 12, 2021 order, Plaintiff did
15
not use the correct forms for any of his incomplete application filings. The September 10,
16
2021 deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a fully complete application to
17
proceed in forma pauperis or paid the full $402 filing fee.
18
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the
19
exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .
20
dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
21
(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure
22
to 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, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay
15
in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air
16
West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
17
disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of
18
dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey
19
the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”
20
requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779
21
F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a fully complete application to
22
proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before September 10, 2021
23
expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file a fully
24
complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full
25
$402 filing fee for a civil action on or before September 10, 2021, this case will be subject
26
to dismissal without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new
27
case number, when Plaintiff is has all three documents needed to file a complete
28
application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the the full $402 filing fee.” (ECF No. 3
-2-
The fourth factor—public policy favoring
1
at 3).
Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from
2
noncompliance with the Court’s order to file a fully complete application to proceed in
3
forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before September 10, 2021.
4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice
5
based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis
6
or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated July 12, 2021.
7
(ECF No. 3).
8
9
10
11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions (ECF Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11,
13, 14, 15, 16, and 17) are denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter
judgment accordingly.
12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff may move to reopen this case and
13
vacate the judgment by filing a motion for reconsideration of this order. In this motion, the
14
Plaintiff is required to explain what circumstances delayed him from paying the filing fee
15
or filing the IFP application. If the Court finds there to be good cause or a reasonable
16
explanation therein, the Court will reopen the case and vacate the judgment.
17
18
19
20
DATED: November 18, 2021
___
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?