Shannon v. Baca et al

Filing 5

ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with ECF No. 3 order; Clerk directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/21/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9 NICK R. SHANNON,
10

Case No. 3:16-cv-00740-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
11
ISIDRO BACA, 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 November 13, 2017, this Court issued an order directing

16

Plaintiff to file his updated address with this Court within thirty (30) days.1 (ECF No. 3 at

17

2.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address

18

or otherwise 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
28

1This

order was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 4.)

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

failure to comply with local rules).

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court

24

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

25

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

26

No. 3 at 2.) Local Rule IA 3-1 similarly cautions a party to notify the court of any change

27

of mailing address to avoid dismissal. Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal

28

///
2

1

would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address

2

within thirty (30) days.

3

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

4

Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s November 13,

5

2017, order.

6

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

7

DATED THIS 21st day of December 2017.

8
9

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3