Eschelbach v. Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 9

ORDER. Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to file an updated address and an application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner in compliance with this Court's January 29, 2025, order. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/4/2025. (For Distribution by law library.) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CAH)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

SEAN ESCHELBACH,

7
8
9

v.

Case No. 2:24-cv-01273-GMN-MDC
Plaintiff,

DISMISSAL ORDER

NDOC, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11
12

Plaintiff Sean Eschelbach (“Plaintiff”) brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C.

13

§ 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated

14

at Southern Desert Correctional Center. (ECF No. 4 at 1.) On January 29, 2025, this

15

Court ordered Plaintiff to update his address and file an application to proceed in forma

16

pauperis by a non-prisoner by February 21, 2025. (ECF No. 7 at 1.) That deadline expired

17

without an updated address from Plaintiff, and his mail from the Court is being returned

18

as undeliverable. (See ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff also failed to file an application to proceed in

19

forma pauperis by a non-prisoner or pay the full filing fee of $405.

20

I.

DISCUSSION

21

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

22

exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .

23

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

24

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court

25

order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.

26

1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to

27

keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th

28

1

Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to

2

dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting

7

Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)).

8

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

9

and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s

10

claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal

11

because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing

12

a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542

13

F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of

14

cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.

15

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

16

be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider

17

dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining

18

that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order

19

does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th

20

Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that

21

“implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s

22

order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled

23

with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish).

24

Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a

25

case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

26

F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed without

27

the ability for the Court and the defendants to send Plaintiff case-related documents,

28
2

1

filings, and orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline.

2

But without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach

3

Plaintiff is low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and further

4

squander the Court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful

5

alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal.

6

II.

CONCLUSION

7

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

8

weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without

9

prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address and an application to

10

proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner in compliance with this Court’s January 29,

11

2025, order. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and close

12

this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes

13

to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and provide the Court with

14

his current address.

15
16
17
18

March 4, 2025
Gloria M. Navarro, Judge
United State District Court

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

___