Hendricks v. C.C.D.C.

Filing 5

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Hendricks's failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee in compliance with this court's 1/3/2024, Order. Signed by Judge Cristina D. Silva on 3/26/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2
3
4

Robert Hendricks,
Plaintiff

5

Order Dismissing and Closing Case

v.

6
7

Case No. 2:23-cv-02136-CDS-BNW

C.C.D.C.,
Defendant

8
9
10

Pro se plaintiff Robert Hendricks brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to

11 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated. ECF No. 1-1. On
12 January 3, 2024, this court ordered Hendricks to file a fully complete application to proceed in
13 forma pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee on or before March 1, 2024. ECF No. 4. The court
14 warned Hendricks that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete
15 application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $405 filing fee for a
16 civil action by that deadline. Id. at 2. That deadline expired and Hendricks did not file a fully
17 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $405 filing fee, or otherwise respond.
18 I.

Discussion

19

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

20 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.
21 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an
22 action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King,
23 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule
24 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d
25 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether
26 to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in
27 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
28 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

1 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d
2 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130).
The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and

3

4 the court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Hendricks’s claims. The
5 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a
6 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading
7 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir.
8 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is
9 greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.
The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to

10

11 correct the party’s failure that brought about the need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal.
12 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives
13 before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza,
14 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of
15 dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.”
16 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this court cannot operate without
17 collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without Hendricks’s compliance with
18 court orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But issuing a
19 second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the court’s finite resources.
20 Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth
21 factor favors dismissal. Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they
22 weigh in favor of dismissal.
23
24

II.

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

25 Hendricks’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full
26 $405 filing fee in compliance with this court’s January 3, 2024, order.
27
28

2

1

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No

2 other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Hendricks wishes to pursue his claims,
3 he must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the required filing fee or properly apply for in
4 forma pauperis status.
5

Dated: March 26, 2024

6
7
8

Cristina D. Silva
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3