Banks v. Baca

Filing 8

ORDER dismissing without prejudice this action based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address; denying as moot ECF No. 6 IFP application; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/7/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

DAMION MARQUIS BANKS,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00535-RCJ-WGC
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

Order

14

ISIDRO BACA,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19

I.

DISCUSSION

20

Plaintiff, a former inmate of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), has

21

submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and an application to proceed

22

in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1-1, 6). On March 31, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to

23

provide the Court with an updated address within thirty days. (ECF No. 7 at 1:2-3). The thirty-

24

day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an updated address or otherwise

25

responded to the Court’s order.

26

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

27

of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a

28

Page 1 of 3

1

case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

2

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

3

action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v.

4

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik

5

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an

6

order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.

7

1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court

8

apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

9

(dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424

10

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

11

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

12

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1)

13

the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its

14

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of

15

cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d

16

at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-

17

61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542

23

F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition of cases

24

on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein.

25

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

26

dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;

27

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

28

Page 2 of 3

1

file an updated address expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does

2

not timely comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.” (ECF

3

No. 7 at 2:4-5). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

4

noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an updated address.

5

II.

CONCLUSION

6

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without

7

prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with the Court’s

8

March 31, 2016 order.

9
10
11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 6) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

12
13

th
DATED: This __ day of June, 2016.
DATED this 7 day of May, 2016.

14
__________________________________
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 3 of 3