Williams v. S.C.C. Mailroom et al

Filing 9

ORDER dismissing case based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint and for failure to state a claim; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 9/16/2016. (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
12
13
14
15

ROBERT WILLIAMS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TOLOTTI et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )
)

3:15-cv-00630-RCJ-VPC
ORDER

16
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
17
former inmate of the Nevada Department of Corrections. On July 14, 2016, the Court issued
18
an order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 6). On July 18, 2016, the
19
Court clarified Plaintiff’s timetable to file an amended complaint by directing any amended
20
complaint to be filed within thirty days of the entry of that order. (ECF No. 8 at 2:12-15). The
21
thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or
22
otherwise responded to the Court’s order.
23
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise
24
of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a
25
case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
26
A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an
27
action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v.
28
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an
order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.
1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court
apprised of 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) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a
court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1)
the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its
docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of
cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d
at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 126061; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh
in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of
dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in
filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542
F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition of cases
on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein.
Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in
dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;
Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint curing the stated
deficiencies of the complaint, this action shall be dismissed without prejudice.” (ECF No. 8
at 2:21-23). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his
noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint within thirty days.
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

It is therefore ORDERED that this action is dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to file
an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s July 14, 2016 screening order (ECF No.
6), and July 18, 2016 clarifying order (ECF No. 8), and for failure to state a claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
DATED: This 16th day of September, 2016. 2016.
DATED: This _____ day of September,

7
8

_________________________________
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3