Byrd v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Clerk of Court to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE CASE. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/4/2025. (For Distribution by law library.) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JG)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

MARSHA BYRD,

6

Plaintiff,

7
8

Case No. 2:25-cv-00029-GMN-MDC

v.

ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING
CASE

STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

9

Defendants.
This action began with a pro se civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 submitted

10
11

by a state prisoner. On January 8, 2025, the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to either file a

12

new fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee for

13

this action by February 24, 2025. (ECF No. 3). The magistrate judge warned Plaintiff that this

14

action would be subject to dismissal without prejudice if she failed to timely comply. (Id. at 2).

15

But that deadline expired without any compliance or other response from Plaintiff.

16

I.

DISCUSSION

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply

22

with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack

23

of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action

24

on these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

25

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants;

26

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less

27

drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir.

28

2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130).

1

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

2

Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third

3

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

4

injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. See Anderson v.

5

Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring

6

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

7

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

8

to correct the party’s failure that brought about the need to consider dismissal. Yourish v. Cal.

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

alternatives.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Because the Court cannot operate without collecting

14

reasonable fees and litigation cannot progress without Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s

15

orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But repeating an

16

ignored order often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The

17

circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline is

18

not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, the fifth factor favors dismissal.

19

II.

CONCLUSION

20

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

21

favor of dismissal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED

22

without prejudice based on the plaintiff’s failure to address the matter of the filing fee in

23

compliance with the Court’s January 8, 2025, order. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to

24

ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. If Marsha Byrd wishes to pursue

25

her claims, she must file a complaint in a new case and either apply for in forma pauperis status

26

or pay the required filing fee for that action.

27

DATED: March 4, 2025

________________________________
GLORIA M. NAVARRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2 of 3