Hatlen v. Cox et al

Filing 26

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint; denying as moot 5 motion to proceed IFP; denying 24 and 25 motions for hearing; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/20/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

KENNETH W. HATLEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
GREG COX et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )

3:14-cv-316-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

13

This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a state

14

prisoner. On August 13, 2014, this Court issued a screening order dismissing the complaint

15

in its entirety with leave to amend. (ECF No. 6 at 7). The Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to

16

file an amended complaint. (Id.). On September 2, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff an

17

extension until December 1, 2014, to file his amended complaint. (ECF No. 9 at 1). On

18

November 5, 2014, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to extend his deadline to file his

19

amended complaint for another 90 days. (ECF No. 17 at 1). The Court stated that if Plaintiff

20

did not submit a complaint by December 1, 2014, the Court would dismiss the case without

21

prejudice.

22

reconsideration on the Court’s order denying his request for another 90-day extension. (ECF

23

No. 23 at 2-3). The Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before

24

December 1, 2014, or the Court would dismiss the case without prejudice.1 (Id. at 3).

25

(Id.).

On December 16, 2014, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for

On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a hearing. (ECF No. 24). On

26
27
28

1

In that order, the Court discussed why Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by a dismissal
without prejudice. (See ECF No. 23 at 3).
The Court also acknowledges that it entered its order denying the motion for
reconsideration after the stated deadline for filing an amended complaint. The Court has
waited an additional 30 days to provide Plaintiff an opportunity to file his amended complaint.
However, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

1

December 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a hearing and alleged that Defendants were

2

intentionally obstructing his legal mail, supplies, and documents in order to have Plaintiff’s

3

cases dismissed against him. (ECF No. 25 at 2). Plaintiff alleges that these are valid reasons

4

to have his deadlines extended. (Id.).

5

There is nothing in Plaintiff’s motions indicating that he is planning on filing an amended

6

complaint in the near future and instead only seeks to keep extending the deadline to file an

7

amended complaint indefinitely.

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motions for a hearing.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure

12

to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

13

53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

14

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring

15

amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal

16

for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of

17

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

18

failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

19

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

20

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a

21

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1)

22

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

23

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

24

cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d

25

at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-

26

61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

27

In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in

28

expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh
2

1

in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of

2

dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in

3

filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542

4

F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition of cases

5

on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein.

6

Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in

7

dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;

8

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring

9

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by December 1, 2014, expressly stated: “If Plaintiff does

10

not submit an amended complaint by December 1, 2014, the Court will dismiss the case

11

without prejudice.” (ECF No. 17 at 1). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal

12

would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint by

13

December 1, 2014.

14

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s

15

failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s November 5, 2014 and

16

December 16, 2014 orders (ECF No. 17, 23).

17
18

It is further ordered that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is denied
as moot.

19

It is further ordered that the motions for hearing (ECF No. 24, 25) are denied.

20

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

21
22

Dated this 20th day of January, 2015.
DATED: This _____ day of January, 2015.

23
24

_________________________________
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
3