De La Hoya v. Carrillo et al

Filing 7

ORDER dismissing with prejudice this action for failure to file an amended complaint and for failure to state a claim; denying as moot ECF No. 1 IFP Application; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/17/2018. (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

JORGE DE LA HOYA,

10
11
12

Case No. 3:17-cv-00168-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
SONYA CARILLO, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

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

16

a state prisoner. On March 13, 2018, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint

17

with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days.1

18

(ECF No. 3 at 6.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an

19

amended complaint 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
28

1The

order was returned as undeliverable because Plaintiff failed to file a notice of
change of address with the Court as required under LR IA 3-1.

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

failure to comply with local rules).

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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. See

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within

25

thirty days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended

26

complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be dismissed with

27

prejudice for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 3 at 6). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate

28

1

warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file

2

an amended complaint within thirty days.

3

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

4

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s March 13,

5

2018 order and for failure to state a claim.

6
7
8

It is further ordered that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is
denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.

9
10

DATED THIS 17th day of April 2018.

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

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE