Prentiss v. Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 8

ORDER - This action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court's order (ECF No. 6 ). Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/9/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

IVAN PRENTISS,

10

Case No. 3:16-cv-00263-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
11
12
13

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by

16

a former state prisoner. On January 3, 2017, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff

17

to file his updated address with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 6 at 2.) The

18

thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or

19

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 for

27

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 his updated address with the Court

23

within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails

24

to timely comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF

25

No. 6 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

26

noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address within thirty (30) days.

27

///

28

///
2

1

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on

2

Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s January 3,

3

2017, order.

4

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.

5
DATED THIS 9th day of February 2017.
6
7
8

MIRANDA M. DU
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