Matthews v. Travis et al
Filing
8
ORDER This action is dismissed based on failure to pay filing fee. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/4/15. (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
10
11
12
13
FELTON L. MATTHEWS, JR.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MRS. TRAVIS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )
3:15-cv-00130-RCJ-WGC
ORDER
14
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a
15
prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections. On June 25, 2015, this
16
Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because
17
Plaintiff had “three strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF. No. 6). The Court informed
18
Plaintiff that if he did not pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within thirty days of the date of that
19
order, the Court would dismiss the action without prejudice. (Id., at 2). The thirty-day period
20
has now 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 exercise of
22
that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.
23
Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court
24
may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure
25
to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
26
53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
27
F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring
28
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 pay the full filing fee within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER
23
ORDERED that this action will be DISMISSED without prejudice unless Plaintiff pays the
24
$400.00 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.” (ECF. No. 6 at 2). Thus,
25
Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the
26
Court’s order to pay the full filing fee within thirty days.
27
///
28
///
2
1
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s
2
failure to pay the $400.00 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s June 25, 2015, order.
3
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
4
5
Dated this 4th day of August, 2015.
DATED: This _____ day of __________________, 2015.
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?