Hymon v. Clark County et al

Filing 6

ORDER. Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of dismissal. I therefore order that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Roderick Hymon's failure to either pay the $403 filing f ee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-inmates and file an updated address in compliance with this court's May 22, 2024, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other do cuments may be filed in this now-closed case. If Roderick Hymon wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case, either pay the required filing fee or properly apply for in forma pauperis status, and provide the court with his current address. I order that the motion to consolidate (ECF No. 3 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 7/8/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Roderick Hymon, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01404-APG-NJK 4 Order Dismissing and Closing Case Plaintiff 5 v. 6 Clark County, et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 Plaintiff Roderick Hymon brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 10 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while detained at Clark County 11 Detention Center. 1 On May 22, 2024, the magistrate judge ordered Hymon to either pay the full 12 $403 filing fee or file a new application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-inmates and update 13 his address by June 21, 2024. 2 That deadline expired without payment of the filing fee, a new 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis, or an updated address from Hymon, and his mail from 15 the court is being returned as undeliverable. 3 16 I. Discussion 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 18 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 4 A 19 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local 20 21 22 23 1 ECF No. 1-1 at 1. 2 ECF No. 4. 3 See ECF No. 5. 4 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 1 rules. 5 In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, I must consider: 2 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 3 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 4 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 6 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 6 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Hymon’s claims. The 7 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 8 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 9 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. 7 The fourth factor—the public policy favoring 10 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 11 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to 12 correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. 8 Courts 13 “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 14 explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 9 Because this court cannot operate without 15 collecting reasonable fees, and this action cannot realistically proceed without the ability for the 16 court and the defendants to send Hymon case-related documents, filings, and orders, the only 17 18 5 22 8 See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 19 U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 20 6 See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 21 7 See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); 23 accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). 2 1 alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But without an updated address, 2 the likelihood that the second order would even reach Hymon is low, so issuing a second order 3 will only delay the inevitable and further squander the court’s finite resources. Setting another 4 deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors 5 dismissal. 6 II. Conclusion 7 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 8 dismissal. I therefore order that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Roderick 9 Hymon’s failure to either pay the $403 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma 10 pauperis for non-inmates and file an updated address in compliance with this court’s May 22, 11 2024, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 12 No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Roderick Hymon wishes to pursue 13 his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case, either pay the required filing fee or properly 14 apply for in forma pauperis status, and provide the court with his current address. 15 I order that the motion to consolidate (ECF No. 3) is denied as moot. 16 17 Dated: July 8, 2024 _________________________________ U.S. District Judge 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?