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)

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