Daniels et al v. Cox et al

Filing 8

ORDER dismissing without prejudice this action based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint per 4 and 7 orders; denying as moot 1 and 3 motions; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/1/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

AARON K. DANIELS,

10

Case No. 3:15-cv-00387-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
11
GREG COX, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

15

by a state prisoner. On January 20, 2016, this Court issued an order dismissing the

16

complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint

17

within thirty (30) days. (Dkt no. 4 at 11-12). On February 8, 2016, the Court granted

18

Plaintiff’s motion for an additional thirty (30) days to amend his complaint. (Dkt no. 7.)

19

The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended

20

complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

21

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the

22

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

23

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829,

24

831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s

25

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with

26

local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for

27

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

28

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of

1

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

2

to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);

3

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to

4

comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

5

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended

24

complaint within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that if Plaintiff

25

fails to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this

26

action will be dismissed with prejudice.” (Dkt. no. 4 at 12.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate

27

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

28

an amended complaint within thirty (30) days.
2

1

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

2

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s January

3

20, 2016, and February 8, 2016, orders.

4
5
6
7

It is further ordered that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 1) is
denied as moot.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to extend limitations of plaintiff’s photo
copy work account (dkt no. 3) is denied as moot.

8

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

9

DATED THIS 1st day of April 2016.

10
11

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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