Mustafanos et al v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 106

ORDERED that claims against Defendants Andrew Strode and Albert Torres are dismissed with prejudice. It is further ordered that Defendant Andrew Strode's motion to dismiss (ECF No. #103 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/18/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

YOSEF I. MUSTAFANOS, and SHIRLEY
J. CLIFTON by and through YOSEF L.
MUSTAFANOS, her legally appointed
guardian,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00254-MMD-WGC
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, LYON
COUNTY, P.J. BALTES, GREGORY
KANTZ, ALBERT TORRES, DEBORAH
JUNE STRODE, LAURA DEPAOLI,
ANDREW STRODE, EDWARD
ANDERSON, JD, LEON ABASTURI,
DAVID O’MARA, AARON MOURITSEN,
JAMES SHIELDS BEASLEY, JONATHAN
KING, DAY WILLIAMS and DOES 1 thru
10 inclusive,
Defendants.

19

On March 13, 2017, the Court issued an Order dismissing claims against

20

Defendants Andrew Strode and Albert Torres and gave leave for Plaintiffs to amend their

21

complaint to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). (ECF No. 95.) The Court gave Plaintiffs

22

thirty (30) days (until April 13, 2017) to file an amended complaint and subsequently

23

extended this deadline to May 12, 2017. (Id. at 12; ECF No. 102.) To date, Plaintiffs have

24

failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s Order.

25

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the

26

exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .

27

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

28

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure

1

to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.

2

See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance

3

with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for

4

failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

5

F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring

6

pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833

7

F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson

8

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and

9

failure to comply with local rules).

10

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey

11

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors:

12

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to

13

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring

14

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.

15

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;

16

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

17

In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in

18

expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,

19

weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs

20

in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of

21

unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See

22

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor ― public policy

23

favoring disposition of cases on their merits ― is greatly outweighed by the factors in

24

favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to

25

obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”

26

requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d

27

at 1424. The Court’s Order giving leave for Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint

28

expressly stated: “Plaintiffs will be given thirty (30) days to amend their Complaint to

2

1

provide ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing’ Plaintiffs are ‘entitled to relief’

2

against Defendants Andrew Strode and Albert Torres. Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a)(2). Failure to do

3

so will result in dismissal of the claims against these Defendants with prejudice.” (ECF

4

No. 95 at 12.) Thus, Plaintiffs had adequate warning that dismissal would result from their

5

noncompliance with the Court’s Order giving them leave to file an amended complaint.

6
7
8
9

It is therefore ordered that claims against Defendants Andrew Strode and Albert
Torres are dismissed with prejudice.
It is further ordered that Defendant Andrew Strode’s motion to dismiss (ECF No.
103) is denied as moot.

10
11

DATED THIS 18th day of May 2017.

12
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3