Lash v. Gedney et al

Filing 18

ORDER that this action is dismissed with prejudiced based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with the Court's 01/04/2017 Order; denying as moot ECF No. 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; inmate mediation scheduled for 03/14/2017 ECF No. 14 is vacated; Clerk directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 02/16/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 10 11 12 13 JOHN LASH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) KAREN GEDNEY et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ___________________________________ ) 3:15-cv-00625-RCJ-VPC ORDER 14 This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a 15 former state prisoner. On January 4, 2017, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file 16 his updated address with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 15). The thirty-day 17 period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded 18 to the Court’s order. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 20 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 21 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court 22 may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure 23 to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 24 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 25 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 26 amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal 27 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 28 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 1 (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 2 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a 3 court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) 4 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 5 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 6 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d 7 at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260- 8 61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 9 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 10 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh 11 in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 12 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in 13 filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 14 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition of cases 15 on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. 16 Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in 17 dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 18 Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring 19 Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “IT 20 IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the Court shall 21 dismiss this case with prejudice.” (ECF No. 15 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning 22 that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated 23 address within thirty (30) days. 24 25 26 27 28 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s January 4, 2017, order. It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the inmate mediation scheduled for March 14, 2017 2 1 2 3 4 (ECF No. 14) is vacated. It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Dated: This 16th day of February, 2017. DATED: This _____ day of February, 2017. 5 6 _________________________________ United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 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?