Anderson v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 18

ORDER that this action is dismissed with prejudice based onPlaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with ECF No. 15 Order; motion for copy of records by interested party ECF No. 17 is denied; Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/26/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 *** 8 9 10 11 12 JESSE ANDERSON, Case No. 3:16-cv-00757-MMD-VPC Plaintiff, ORDER v. STATE OF NEVADA 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 September 14, 2017, the Court issued an order dismissing 16 some counts in the complaint with prejudice and some counts with leave to amend and 17 directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 15 at 9.) 18 The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint 19 or 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 favor 19 of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 20 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 an amended complaint within thirty 23 days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended 24 complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be dismissed with 25 prejudice.” (ECF No. 15 at 10.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would 26 result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint within 27 (30) thirty days. 28 /// 2 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on 2 Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s September 3 14, 2017, order. 4 5 It is further ordered that the motion for copy of record by interested party (ECF No. 17) is denied.1 6 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly. 7 DATED THIS 26th day of October 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 1Alvon Shoneer Surrell, Sr., an interested party, seeks a copy of all pleadings in this matter. (ECF No. 17.) The Court denies this motion. The Court cannot provide copies or mailing service for parties. If Surrell wishes to receive copies of electronically filed documents from the Court, the cost is $0.10 per page. Nev. LR IC 1-1(i)(5). 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?