Trzaska v. Willson et al

Filing 11

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Trzaska's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this court's 10/28/2022, Order. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 1/18/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Download PDF
Case 2:22-cv-00811-APG-NJK Document 11 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 3 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 EDWARD SETH TRZASKA, 4 Case No.: 2:22-cv-00811-APG-NJK Plaintiff Order 5 v. 6 WILLSON, et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 Plaintiff Edward Seth Trzaska brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 10 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High Desert 11 State Prison. ECF No. 4. On November 21, 2022, the magistrate judge ordered Trzaska to file his 12 current address and a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days. ECF 13 No. 7. That deadline expired without an updated address from Trzaska, and court filings sent to 14 him have come back as undeliverable. See ECF Nos. 8, 10. 15 I. Discussion 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 17 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 18 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 19 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 20 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 21 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. 22 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 23 order). In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, I must consider: (1) Case 2:22-cv-00811-APG-NJK Document 11 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 3 1 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 2 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 3 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 4 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone 5 v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 6 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 Trzaska’s claims. The third 8 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption 9 of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the 10 court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The 11 fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly 12 outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to 14 correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 15 v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 16 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 17 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive 18 force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives 19 prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial 20 granting of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have 21 been “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 22 finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 23 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 2 Case 2:22-cv-00811-APG-NJK Document 11 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 3 1 without the ability for the court and the defendants to send Trzaska case-related documents, 2 filings, and orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But 3 without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach Trzaska is 4 low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the court’s 5 finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 6 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 7 II. Conclusion 8 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 9 dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 10 Trzaska’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this court’s October 28, 2022, 11 order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 12 documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Trzaska wishes to pursue his claims, he must 13 file a complaint in a new case and provide the court with his current address. 14 Dated: January 18, 2023 _________________________________ U.S. District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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?