Wessley v. Baca et al

Filing 14

ORDER dismissing with prejudice this action based on Plaintiff's failure to file an IFP application or pay the full filing fee in compliance with the Court's ECF No. 12 Order; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/22/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

WESLEY WESSLEY,

10
11
12

Case No. 3:17-cv-00113-RCJ-VPC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
ISIDRO BACA et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by

17

a former state prisoner. On March 27, 2018, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff

18

to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay

19

the full filing fee of $400.00 within thirty (30) days from the date of that order. (ECF No.

20

12 at 11). The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application

21

to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise

22

responded to the Court’s order.

23

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the

24

exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .

25

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

26

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure

27

to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.

28

See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance

1

with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal

2

for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

failure to comply with local rules).

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma

26

pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days expressly stated:

27

“It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to timely file a non-prisoner in forma pauperis

28

application, the Court shall dismiss this action with prejudice.” (ECF No. 12 at 11). Thus,

-2-

1

Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with

2

the Court’s order to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or

3

pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days.

4

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on

5

Plaintiff’s failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or

6

pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court’s March 27, 2018, order.

7

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

8
9

21
DATED THIS May day of May 2018.
____ 22, 2018.

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-3-