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)

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