Hunt v. CCDC et al

Filing 4

ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff'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 September 20, 2024, Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/5/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

JACOB HUNT,

5

Case No. 2:24-cv-01739-RFB-BNW
Plaintiff,

6

v.

7

CCDC, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff Jacob Hunt brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress
constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated. ECF No. 1-1. On September
20, 2024, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma
pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee on or before November 19, 2024. ECF No. 3. The Court
warned Plaintiff that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete application
15
to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $405 filing fee for a civil
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

action by that deadline. Id. at 2. That deadline expired and Plaintiff did not file a fully complete
application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $405 filing fee, or otherwise respond.
I.

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

that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.
Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may
dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. 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. U.S. Postal
Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In
determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1)

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 v.

5

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 Plaintiff’s claims. The third

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

the factors favoring dismissal.

13

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

14

to 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 granting

20

of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been

21

“eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally

22

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

23

779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and

24

unless Plaintiff either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the

25

$405 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another

26

deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and

27

squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will

28
2

1

be an exception: there is no hint that Plaintiff needs additional time or evidence that he did not

2

receive the Court’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these

3

circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal.

4

II.

5
6

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

favor of dismissal.

7

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on

8

Plaintiff’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full

9

$405 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s September 20, 2024, Order. The Clerk of Court is

10

directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

11

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

12

judgment by filing a motion for reconsideration of this Order. In this motion, the Plaintiff is

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

and vacate the judgment.

17

DATED: January 5, 2025

18
___

19
20

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3