Coleman v. Walker et al

Filing 4

ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's April 12, 2016, order (ECF No. 2 ), and for failure to state a claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 )is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/7/2016. (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
11
12
13
14
15

STEVE COLEMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BOB WALKER, KATHERINE REYNOLDS, )
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )
)

3:15-cv-00576-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

16
17

I.

DISCUSSION

18

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

19

state prisoner. On April 12, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint for

20

failure to state a claim with leave to amend, and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint

21

within thirty days. (ECF No. 2 at 6-7).

22

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

23

or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. District courts have the inherent power to control

24

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

25

appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782

26

F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a

27

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

28

local rules.

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

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

1

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v.

2

King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule

3

requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

4

833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson

5

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure

6

to comply with local rules).

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER

25

ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint curing the stated

26

deficiencies of the complaint, this action shall be dismissed without prejudice.” (ECF No. 2

27

at 7:7-9).

Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

28
2

1

noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint within thirty days.

2

II.

CONCLUSION

3

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

4

prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this

5

Court’s April 12, 2016, order (ECF No. 2), and for failure to state a claim.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
DATED: This 7th day of June, 2016.
DATED: This _____ day of May, 2016.

11
12

_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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