McCaffrey v. Hilderbrand et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to file an IFP application or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court's 11/3/2014 order. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/16/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

WILLIAM J. MCCAFFREY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
J. HILDERBRAND et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )

3:14-cv-564-RCJ-VPC
ORDER

14

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

15

former inmate. On November 3, 2014, this Court issued an order denying the application to

16

proceed in forma pauperis, without prejudice, because Plaintiff had filed an application to

17

proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners. (ECF No. 3 at 1). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file

18

a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing

19

fee of $400.00 within thirty days from the date of that order. (Id.). The thirty-day period has

20

now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-

21

prisoners, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring
amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing

23

fee within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not

24

timely comply with this order, dismissal of this action may result.” (ECF No. 3 at 1). Thus,

25

Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the

26

Court’s order to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee

27

within thirty days.

28

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s
2

1

failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing

2

fee in compliance with this Court’s November 3, 2014, order.

3

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

4
5

Dated: This 16th day of December, 2014.
DATED: This _____ day of December, 2014.

6
7

_________________________________
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3