Sanchez v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 28

ORDER dismissing this action for failure to comply with 24 Order and denying as moot 22 motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/13/16. (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

AMADEO SANCHEZ,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00144-MMD-WGC

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
11
THE STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

I.

DISCUSSION

15

On March 10, 2016, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file an updated

16

address with the Court or face dismissal. (Dkt. no. 24, 3:22-23.) Plaintiff filed an updated

17

address with the Court on March 11, 2016. (Dkt. no. 25.) The Court also ordered “that

18

by April 1, 2016, Plaintiff shall either: (1) file a fully complete application to proceed in

19

forma pauperis for non-prisoners; or (2) pay the full filing fee of $400.00.” (Dkt. no. 24 at

20

3:24-26.) The Court specifically stated that “failure to timely comply with this order will

21

result in the dismissal of this action, with prejudice.” (Id. at 4:11-12.)

22

Plaintiff did not file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-

23

prisoners or pay the full filing fee of $400.00. District courts have the inherent power to

24

control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

25

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City

26

of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with

27

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order,

28

or failure to comply with the local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th

1

Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

2

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring

3

amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)

4

(dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

5

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local

6

rules).

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.

25

The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a complete application to proceed in

26

forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee of $400.00 expressly stated “It

27

is further ordered that failure to timely comply with this order will result in the dismissal

28

of this action, with prejudice.” (Dkt. no. 24 at 4:11-12.) Thus, Plaintiff has adequate
2

1

warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file

2

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

3

filing fee of $400.00.1

4

II.

CONCLUSION

5

For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that this action is dismissed with

6

prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a complete application to proceed in forma

7

pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee of $400.00 in compliance with this

8

Court’s March 10, 2016, order.

9
10

It is further ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss (dkt. no 22) is denied
as moot.

11

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

12

DATED THIS 13th day of April 2016.

13
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court’s order (dkt. no. 24) directing Plaintiff to file a complete application to
proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee of $400.00, was
sent to Plaintiff’s updated address on March 14, 2016. (Dkt. no. 26.)
3