Rush v. Holmes

Filing 39

ORDER dismissing without prejudice this action for Plaintiff's failure to file updated address; denying as moot ECF Nos. 28 , 34 motions; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/12/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 JOHN RUSH, Case No. 3:15-cv-00331-MMD-VPC Plaintiff, 10 ORDER v. 11 DOCTOR HOLMES et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by 15 a state prisoner. On September 1, 2016, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to 16 file an updated address with the Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 38 at 1). The 17 thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an updated address with 18 this Court or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 22 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s 23 failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 24 local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for 25 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 26 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 27 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply 28 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 1 U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 2 with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal 3 for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 4 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to 5 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several 6 factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 7 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 8 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 9 alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 10 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 11 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 12 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 13 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs 14 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 15 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. 16 See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public 17 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors 18 in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his 19 failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 20 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; 21 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an updated 22 address within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff 23 fails to comply with this order, this Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF 24 No. 38 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 25 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an updated address with the Court within 26 thirty days. 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 2 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s September 1, 3 2016, order. It is further ordered that the outstanding motions (ECF No. 28, 34) are denied as 4 5 6 7 moot. It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly. DATED THIS 12th day of October 2016. 8 9 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?