Jones v. Maire et al

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing without prejudice this action; directing Clerk to close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/12/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 MONROE JONES, Case No. 3:16-cv-00428-MMD-WGC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 11 MAIRE, et al., 12 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 April 5, 2017, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to 16 file his updated address with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) The thirty- 17 day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise 18 responded to the Court’s order. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 22 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 23 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 24 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 25 with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 26 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 27 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring 28 pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 1 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson 2 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and 3 failure to comply with local rules). 4 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 5 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 6 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 7 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 8 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 9 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 10 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 11 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 12 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 13 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs 14 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 15 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See 16 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor — public policy 17 favoring disposition of cases on their merits — is greatly outweighed by the factors in 18 favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to 19 obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 20 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 21 at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court 22 within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails 23 to timely comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF 24 No. 4 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 25 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address within thirty (30) days. 26 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 27 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s April 5, 2017, 28 order. 2 1 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court close this case. 2 DATED THIS 12th day of May 2017. 3 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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 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?