Manning v. Department of Corrections

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. This action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee in compliance with this Court's # 5 order. Further ordered that the # 6 motion for recap by the Court is denied. It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/17/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

KENNETH DUANE MANNING,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 3:14-cv-00394-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.

14
15

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

16

a state prisoner. On October 8, 2014, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s

17

application to proceed in forma pauperis because Plaintiff had “three strikes” pursuant

18

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Dkt. no. 5 at 1-2.) The Court informed Plaintiff that if he did not

19

pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days of the date of that order, the Court

20

would dismiss the action without prejudice. (Id. at 2.) The thirty-day period has now

21

expired and Plaintiff has not paid the full filing fee of $400.00.

22

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

23

exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .

24

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829,

25

831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s

26

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with

27

local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for

28

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

1

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several

9

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need

10

to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

11

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

12

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone,

13

833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.

19

See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor ― public

20

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits ― is greatly outweighed by the

21

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that

22

his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

23

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33;

24

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to pay the full filing

25

fee within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “It is ordered that this action will be

26

dismissed without prejudice unless Plaintiff pays the $400.00 filing fee in full within thirty

27

(30) days of entry of this order.”(Dkt. no. 5 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning

28

///
2

1

that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to pay the full

2

filing fee within thirty (30) days.

3

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

4

Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $400.00 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s October 8,

5

2014, order.

6

It is further ordered that the motion for recap by the Court (dkt. no. 6) is denied.

7

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

8
9

DATED THIS 17th day of November 2014.

10
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3