Coins v. Baca

Filing 7

ORDERED this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an IFP application or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court's Order (ECF No. 5 ). It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/2/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

EUGENE COINS, JR.,

9
10
11
12

Case No. 3:16-cv-00289-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
ISIDRO BACA et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

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

15

a former state prisoner. On January 17, 2017, this Court issued an order denying the

16

application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot and directed Plaintiff to file

17

a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days from the

18

date of that order. (ECF No. 5 at 1, 8.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully complete

19

application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee of

20

$400.00 within thirty (30) days from the date of that order. (Id. at 8.) The thirty-day period

21

has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis

22

for non-prisoners, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

failure to comply with local rules).

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma

26

pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days expressly stated:

27

“It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the Court will

28

dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 5 at 8.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate
2

1

warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file

2

an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee

3

within thirty (30) days.

4

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

5

Plaintiff’s failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or

6

pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court’s January 17, 2017, order.

7

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

8

DATED THIS 2nd day of March 2017.

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