Patterson v. State of Nevada

Filing 4

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Patterson's failure to submit a complaint and file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee in compliance with this court's December 20, 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 Patterson wishes to pursure his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the required filing fee or properly apply for in forma pauperis status. Signed by Judge Cristina D. Silva on 1/28/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AMMi)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 4 Donnail A. Patterson, Case No. 2:24-cv-02332-CDS-MDC Plaintiff 5 Dismissal Order 6 v. 7 State of Nevada, Defendant 8 9 10 Pro se plaintiff Donnail A. Patterson attempted to initiate this civil action but failed to 11 satisfy the matter of the filing fee and submit a complaint. On December 20, 2024, this court 12 ordered Patterson to submit a complaint and file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 13 pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee on or before January 17, 2025. ECF No. 3. The court warned 14 Patterson that the action could be dismissed if he failed to submit a complaint and file a fully 15 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $405 16 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. Id. at 2. That deadline expired and Patterson did not 17 file a complaint, a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $405 filing 18 fee, or otherwise respond. 19 I. Discussion 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 21 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 22 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an 23 action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 24 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 25 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 26 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether 27 to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 28 1 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 2 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 3 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 4 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 6 the court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Patterson’s claims. The 7 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 8 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 9 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 10 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is 11 greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to 13 correct the party’s failure that brought about the need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. 14 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives 15 before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 16 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of 17 dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 18 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this court cannot operate without 19 collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without a plaintiff’s compliance with 20 court orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But issuing a 21 second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the court’s finite resources. 22 Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth 23 factor favors dismissal. Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they 24 weigh in favor of dismissal. 25 26 27 28 2 1 II. Conclusion 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 3 Patterson’s failure to submit a complaint and file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 4 pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee in compliance with this court’s December 20, 2024, order. 5 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No 6 other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Patterson wishes to pursue his claims, he 7 must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the required filing fee or properly apply for in 8 forma pauperis status. 9 10 11 Dated: January 28, 2025 Cristina D. Silva United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?