Moreno v. Peace Officers et al

Filing 16

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice based on failure to file amended complaint. Motion to proceed IFP 7 is denied as moot. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/26/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

LORENZO MORENO,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JUSTEN,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 3:14-cv-00533-RCJ-VPC

ORDER

13
14
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Lorenzo
15
Moreno. On November 13, 2015, this Court issued an order dismissing the complaint with
16
leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF
17
No. 14 at 5). The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended
18
complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.
19
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise
20
of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a
21
case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
22
A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an
23
action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v.
24
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik
25
v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an
26
order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.
27
1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court
28
apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

1

(dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424

2

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER

21

ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined

22

in this order, this action will be dismissed with prejudice.” (ECF No. 14 at 5). Thus, Plaintiff

23

had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s

24

order to file an amended complaint within thirty days.

25

Pursuant to Nevada Local Special Rule 2-2, “[t]he plaintiff shall immediately file with

26

the Court written notification of any change of address. The notification must include proof of

27

service upon each opposing party or the party’s attorney. Failure to comply with this Rule may

28

result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.” Nev. Loc. Special R. 2-2. Plaintiff has failed
2

1

to update his address in accordance with this rule. (See ECF No. 15).

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based

3

on Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s November

4

13, 2015, order.

5
6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7)
is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

8
9

Dated: This 26th day of January, 2016.
DATED: This _____ day of December, 2015.

10
11

_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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