Corgan v. Nevada Department of Public Safety Investigation Division, et al

Filing 118

ORDER dismissing with prejudice this action based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address with the Court in compliance with ECF No. 116 Order; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly and close case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/1/2019. (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

JAMES CORGAN,
Case No. 3:14-CV-00692-RCJ-WGC

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

v.
MIKE KEEMA, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This case is on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

16

Circuit (ECF No. 112). However, according to this Court’s records, Plaintiff is no longer

17

at the address listed with the Court “this inmate paroled 04/09/2019.” (ECF No. 114). The

18

Court notes that pursuant to Nevada Local Rule of Practice IA 3-1, a “pro se party must

19

immediately file with the court written notification of any change of mailing address, email

20

address, telephone number, or facsimile number. The notification must include proof of

21

service on each opposing party of the party’s attorney. Failure to comply with this rule

22

may result in the dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as

23

deemed appropriate by the court.” Nev. Loc. R. IA 3-1.

24

On April 26, 2019, Court Order (ECF No. 116) granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days from

25

the date of entry the order to file his updated address with the Court. Plaintiff has failed

26

to comply with the court’s order within the allotted time.

27

///

28

///

1

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

2

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

3

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal

8

for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

9

F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring

10

pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833

11

F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson

12

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and

13

failure to comply with local rules).

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor

28

of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey

-2-

1

the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”

2

requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779

3

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the

4

Court within thirty days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that if Plaintiff fails to timely

5

comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice.” (ECF No. 116).

6

Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance

7

with the Court’s order to file an updated address with the Court within thirty days.

8

IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE based on

9

Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address with the Court in compliance with this Court’s

10
11
12
13

Order filed April 26, 2019 (ECF No. 116).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment
accordingly and close the case.
DATED this 1st day of August, 2019.

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-