Williams v. Baker et al
Filing
7
ORDER DISMISSING CASE - This action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's order (ECF No. 5 ). It is further ordered that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 ) is denied as moot. It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/8/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
***
10
MARCELL WILLIAMS,
11
Case No. 3:16-cv-00193-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
12
RENEE BAKER et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
16
a state prisoner. On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the
17
complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within
18
thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 5 at 8). The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has
19
not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.
20
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the
21
exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .
22
dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
23
(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure
24
to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.
25
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance
26
with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal
27
for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856
28
F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring
1
pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833
2
F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson
3
v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and
4
failure to comply with local rules).
5
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey
6
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors:
7
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
8
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
9
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.
10
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;
11
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
12
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in
13
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,
14
weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs
15
in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
16
unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See
17
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor — public policy
18
favoring disposition of cases on their merits — is greatly outweighed by the factors in
19
favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to
20
obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”
21
requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d
22
at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty
23
(30) days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that if Plaintiff chooses not to file an
24
amended complaint curing the stated deficiencies of the complaint, this action will be
25
dismissed without prejudice.” (ECF No. 5 at 8.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that
26
dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended
27
complaint within thirty (30) days.
28
///
2
1
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on
2
Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s September
3
30, 2016, order.
4
5
6
It is further ordered that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is
denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.
7
8
DATED THIS 8th day of November 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?