White v. Baker et al

Filing 47

ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court's July 26, 2018 order (ECF No. 42 ). FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/14/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
______________________________________
)
)
MATTHEW SCOTT WHITE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
RENE BAKER et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

3:15-cv-00262-RCJ-CBC
ORDER

12
13

This is a prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 26, 2018, the Court

14

ordered Plaintiff to file his updated address by August 27, 2018. Over three months after the

15

deadline, Plaintiff has still not complied. District courts have the inherent power to control their

16

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

17

appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831

18

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

19

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

20

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (failure to comply with local rule

21

requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address).

22

In determining whether to dismiss an action for one of these reasons, the court must

23

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

24

court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public

1 of 2

1

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

2

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the

3

public's interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court's interest in managing the

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.

9

Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in

10

dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

11

1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court’s July 26, 2018 order stated, “if Plaintiff fails to timely

12

comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case with prejudice.”
CONCLUSION

13
14
15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice based on
Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s July 26, 2018 order.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated this 14th day of December, 2018.
Dated this 4th day of January, 2019.

19
20

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24

2 of 2