Nunn v. University Medical Center et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/5/2025. (For Distribution by law library.) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MAM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

TYRONE NOEL NUNN,

9
10

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:24-cv-01796-RFB-BNW
ORDER

v.

11

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

I. INTRODUCTION

15

On September 30, 2024, this Court ordered Plaintiff Tyrone Nunn to file a single, signed

16

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

17

pauperis by November 29, 2024. (ECF No. 3). That deadline expired without a signed complaint,

18

payment of the filing fee, a complete in forma pauperis application, or other response from

19

Plaintiff.

20

II. DISCUSSION

21

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

22

that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.

23

Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

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 Nunn’s claims. The third

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

the factors favoring dismissal.

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

this Court cannot operate without collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without

20

a plaintiff’s compliance with court orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting

21

another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the inevitable and further

22

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

23

be an exception. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these

24

circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal.

25

III.

CONCLUSION

26

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

27

favor of dismissal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without

28

prejudice based on Tyrone Nunn’s failure to file a single, signed complaint and address the matter

-2-

1

of the filing fee in compliance with this Court’s September 30, 2024, order. The Clerk of Court is

2

directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in

3

this now-closed case. If Tyrone Nunn wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a single, signed

4

complaint in a new case and address the matter of the filing fee.

5
6
7
8
9

DATED: March 5, 2025
__________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-3-