Lucas v. Baca et al
Filing
7
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/29/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
JERVON RAY LUCAS,
10
Case No. 3:15-cv-00606-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
11
WARDEN BACA, 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 December 15, 2015, this Court issued an order denying the
16
application to proceed in forma pauperis, without prejudice, because the application was
17
incomplete. (Dkt. no. 3 at 1-2.) On January 5, 2016, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a
18
fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of
19
$400.00 on or before February 12, 2016. (Dkt. no. 6 at 1.) The deadline has now
20
expired and Plaintiff has not filed another application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid
21
the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.
22
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the
23
exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .
24
dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829,
25
831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s
26
failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with
27
local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for
28
noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.
1
1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of
2
complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure
3
to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);
4
Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to
5
comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)
6
(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
7
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to
8
obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several
9
factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need
10
to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy
11
favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
12
alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone,
13
833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 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,
16
weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs
17
in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
18
unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.
19
See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor ―
20
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits ― is greatly outweighed by the
21
factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that
22
his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of
23
alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33;
24
Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file another
25
application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee on or before February
26
12, 2016, expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely
27
comply with this order, dismissal of this action may result.” (Dkt. no. 6 at 1-2.) Thus,
28
Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with
2
1
the Court’s order to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full
2
filing fee by February 12, 2016.
3
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on
4
Plaintiff’s failure to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full
5
filing fee in compliance with this Court’s December 15, 2015, and January 5, 2016,
6
orders.
7
8
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
DATED THIS 29th day of February 2016.
9
10
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?