Dominguez v. Core Civic et al

Filing 18

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Dominguez's failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee in compliance with the magistrate judges 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 Dominguez wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. < p>IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dominguez's motions for various relief (ECF Nos. 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 15 ) are denied as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 3/11/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Elijah Dominguez,
4

Plaintiff

Case No.: 2:24-cv-02249-APG-MDC
Order

5 v.
6 Core Civic, et al.,
7

Defendants

8
9

Plaintiff Elijah Dominguez brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF

10 No. 1-1. On December 30, 2024, the magistrate judge ordered Dominguez to file a fully
11 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee by February 28,
12 2024. ECF No. 5. The magistrate judge warned Dominguez that the action could be dismissed if
13 he failed to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three
14 documents or pay the full $405 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. Id. at 2.
15

The magistrate judge’s order came back as undeliverable to the last address that

16 Dominguez provided to the court. ECF No. 17. When Dominguez initiated this case, the court
17 sent him an advisory letter that informed him, among other things, that he should notify the court
18 immediately about any change in address. ECF No. 2. The deadline to file an application to
19 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $405 filing fee has past, and Dominguez did not file a fully
20 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $405 filing fee, or file an updated
21 address with the courts.
22 I.

Discussion

23

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.

1 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may
2 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See
3 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply
4 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S.
5 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court
6 order). In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, I must consider:
7 (1) he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its
8 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of
9 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re
10 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,
11 833 F.2d at 130).
12

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

13 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Dominguez’s claims. The
14 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a
15 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading
16 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th
17 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is
18 greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.
19

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

20 correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish
21 v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic
22 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord
23 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every

2

1 sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and
2 meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because
3 this action cannot realistically proceed until and unless Dominguez either files a fully complete
4 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the $405 filing fee for a civil action, the only
5 alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an
6 ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the court’s finite resources.
7 The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: without an updated
8 address from Dominguez, it is unlikely that a second order would even reach him. So the fifth
9 factor favors dismissal. Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they
10 weigh in favor of dismissal.
11 II.

Conclusion

12

I THEREFORE ORDER ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on

13 Dominguez’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the
14 full $405 filing fee in compliance with the magistrate judge’s order. The Clerk of Court is
15 directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in
16 this now-closed case. If Dominguez wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a
17 new case.
18

I FURTHER ORDER that Dominguez’s motions for various relief (ECF Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8,

19 9, 12, 13, 15) are denied as moot.
20

Dated: March 11, 2025
_________________________________
Andrew P. Gordon
Chief United States District Judge

21
22
23

3