DuShane v. Nevada Department of Corrections et al
Filing
11
ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court's order (ECF No. 5 ). FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's IFP application (ECF No. 1 ) is DEN IED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that the mediation currently scheduled for September 6, 2016 (ECF No. 8 ), is VACATED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/18/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
JASEN LYNN DUSHANE,
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3:15-cv-00531-RCJ-WGC
ORDER
___________________________________
16
17
I.
DISCUSSION
18
Plaintiff, a former inmate of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), has
19
submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and an application to proceed
20
in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1, 4). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and permitted his
21
First Amendment free exercise and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause claims
22
to proceed against defendants NNCC Warden Isidro Baca, NDOC deputy director Sarah
23
Foster, and counselor Michelle Hicks.1 (ECF No. 3 at 7:3-7). However, on June 7, 2016, the
24
Court ordered Plaintiff to file an updated address within thirty days. (ECF No. 5 at 2:16-19).
25
The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an updated address
26
or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. District courts have the inherent power to control
27
their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where
28
1
A mediation has since been scheduled. (ECF No. 8).
1
appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782
2
F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a
3
party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with
4
local rules.
5
noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
6
(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v.
7
King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule
8
requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,
9
833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson
10
v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure
11
to comply with local rules).
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for
12
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a
13
court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1)
14
the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its
15
docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of
16
cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d
17
at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-
18
61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
19
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in
20
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh
21
in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of
22
dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in
23
filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542
24
F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition of cases
25
on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein.
26
Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in
27
dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;
28
Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring
2
1
Plaintiff to file an updated address within thirty days expressly stated: “If Plaintiff fails to timely
2
comply with the order to file an updated address, the Court shall dismiss this action with
3
prejudice.” (ECF No. 5 at 2:18-19). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would
4
result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an updated address within thirty
5
days.
6
II.
CONCLUSION
7
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice
8
based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s June 7,
9
2016, order (ECF No. 5).
10
11
12
13
14
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 1) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the mediation currently scheduled for September 6,
2016 (ECF No. 8), is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
15
16
DATED this __ day of July, 2016.
18th day of July, 2016.
17
__________________________________
United States District Judge
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?