Rudnick v. State of Nevada 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 the 1/21/2015 order; directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/24/2015. (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

GARY STUART RUDNICK,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00037-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

ORDER

v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants.

14

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

15

a state prisoner. On January 21, 2015, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file

16

a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400

17

within thirty days because Plaintiff had not filed an application to proceed in forma

18

pauperis. (Dkt. no. 3 at 1-2.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not

19

filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise

20

responded to the Court’s order.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

failure to comply with local rules).

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma

24

pauperis or pay the full filing fee within thirty days expressly stated: “it is further ordered

25

that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, dismissal of this action may result.”

26

(Dkt. no. 3 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

27

noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis

28

or pay the full filing fee within thirty days.
2

1

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

2

Plaintiff’s failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee

3

in compliance with this Court’s January 21, 2015, order.

4

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

5

DATED THIS 24th day of February, 2015.

6
7

MIRANDA M. DU
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