Davis v. H.D.S.P.

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Jason Davis's failure to file a signed complaint and either file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $ ;405 filing fee in compliance with this Courts May 31, 2024, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Davis wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a signed complaint in a new case and either file a complete in forma pauperis application or pay the required filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Davis may move to reopen this case and vacate the judgment by filing a motion for reconsideration of this order. In this motion, Davis is required to explain what circumstances delayed him from paying the filing fee or filing the application to proceed in forma pauperis and a signed complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1. If th e Court finds there to be good cause or a reasonable explanation therein, the Court will reopen the case and vacate the judgment. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/23/2024. (For Distribution by law library.)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10

JASON DAVIS,
v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:24-cv-00206-RFB-BNW
ORDER

H.D.S.P.,
Defendant.

11
12

On May 31, 2024, this Court ordered Plaintiff Jason Davis to file a signed complaint and

13

either file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee

14

on or before July 30, 2024. The Court warned Davis that the action could be dismissed if he failed

15

to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay

16

the full $405 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. That deadline expired and Davis did not

17

file a signed complaint, file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full

18

$405 filing fee, or otherwise respond.

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

22

dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See

23

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply

24

with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal

25

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In

26

determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the

27

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket;

28

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

1

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine

2

Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130).

3

The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the

4

Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Davis’s claims. The third

5

factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of

6

injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court

7

or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth

8

factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by

9

the factors favoring dismissal.

10

The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used

11

to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish

12

v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic

13

alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord

14

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every

15

sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and

16

meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because

17

this action cannot realistically proceed until Davis files a signed complaint and either files a fully

18

complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the $405 filing fee for a civil action,

19

the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating

20

an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite

21

resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting

22

another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor

23

favors dismissal. Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they

24

weigh in favor of dismissal.

25

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on

26

Jason Davis’s failure to file a signed complaint and either file a fully complete application to

27

proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s May 31,

28

2024, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No
2

1

other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Davis wishes to pursue his claims, he

2

must file a signed complaint in a new case and either file a complete in forma pauperis application

3

or pay the required filing fee.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Davis may move to reopen this case and vacate the

5

judgment by filing a motion for reconsideration of this order. In this motion, Davis is required to

6

explain what circumstances delayed him from paying the filing fee or filing the application to

7

proceed in forma pauperis and a signed complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1. If the Court finds

8

there to be good cause or a reasonable explanation therein, the Court will reopen the case and

9

vacate the judgment.

10
11

DATED: September 23, 2024

12
13
14

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

___