Jackson v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice based on failure to pay filing fee. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/27/15. (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

DONALD JACKSON,

10
11
12

Petitioner,

15

ORDER

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

13
14

Case No. 3:15-cv-00154-MMD-VPC

This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 by a Nevada state prisoner.

16

On March 16, 2015, the Court entered an order requiring petitioner to pay the

17

$5.00 filing fee for this action within thirty days. (Dkt. no. 3). The thirty-day period has

18

long since expired, and petitioner has not paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to

19

the Court's order.

20

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the

21

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

22

dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A

23

court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an

24

action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g.

25

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 P.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal of habeas corpus

26

petition with prejudice for failure to prosecute action and failure to comply with a court

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 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. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779

13

F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46

14

F.3d at 53.

15

The Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously

16

resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of

17

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

18

dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

requirement. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643; Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262;

25

Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring

26

petitioner to pay the filing fee within thirty days expressly stated: “Failure to comply with

27

this order may result in the dismissal of this action.” (Dkt. no. 3, at 2). Thus, petitioner

28

///
2

1

had adequate warning that dismissal would result from noncompliance with the Court’s

2

order.

3

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

4

petitioner’s failure to pay the filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order of March 16,

5

2015.

6

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

7

DATED THIS 27th day of July 2015.

8
9
10

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3