Houseman v. Papke et al
Filing
8
ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file IFP or pay filing fee pursuant to ECF No. 7 Order; Clerk directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/14/2017. (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
ROY HOUSEMAN,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00031-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
PAPKE 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 August 7, 2017, this Court issued an order denying the
16
application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot because Plaintiff was no
17
longer incarcerated. (ECF No. 7 at 2.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully complete
18
application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee of
19
$400.00 within thirty (30) days from the date of that order. (Id.) The thirty-day period has
20
now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis for
21
non-prisoners, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.
22
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the
23
exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .
24
dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829,
25
831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s
26
failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with
27
local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for
28
noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.
1
1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);
2
Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply
3
with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v.
4
U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply
5
with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal
6
for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
7
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to
8
obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several
9
factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need
10
to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy
11
favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
12
alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone,
13
833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
14
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in
15
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,
16
weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs
17
in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
18
unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.
19
See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public
20
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors
21
in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his
22
failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of
23
alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33;
24
Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application
25
to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee within thirty (30)
26
days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely
27
comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 7
28
at 3.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his
2
1
noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis
2
for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee 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 application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or
5
pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court’s August 7, 2017, order.
6
7
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.
DATED THIS 14th day of November 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
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?