Ochoa v. Russell et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to pay $400 filing fee in compliance with 3 Order. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/25/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ARTURO TORRES OCHOA,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 3:15-cv-00091-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
K. RUSSELL 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 February 18, 2015, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s

16

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

17

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Dkt. no. 3 at 1-2.) The Court informed Plaintiff that if he did not

18

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

19

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

20

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

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,

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

833 F.2d at 130; 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.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

(30) days of entry of this order.” (Dkt. no. 3 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning

27

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

28

filing fee within thirty (30) days.
2

1

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

2

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

3

18, 2015, order.

4

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

5

DATED THIS 25th day of March 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