Towles v. Dzurenda et al

Filing 29

ORDER that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with ECF No. 27 Order; Clerk directed to enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/3/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

DEE V. TOWLES,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 3:17-CV-00177-RCJ-CBC
ORDER

v.
JAMES DZURENDA, 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 November 28, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin

17

Carry issued an order directing Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court within

18

thirty (30) days from the date of Order (ECF No. 27). It was further ordered that if Plaintiff

19

failed to timely comply with the order, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice. The

20

thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an updated address with the

21

Court.

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, 831

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

for 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 his updated address with the

25

Court within thirty days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that if Plaintiff fails to timely

26

comply with this order, the Court will recommend dismissing this case with prejudice.”

27

///

28

///

-2-

1

(ECF No. 27). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

2

noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an updated address with the Court within

3

thirty days.

4

IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE based on

5

Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address with the Court in compliance with this Court’s

6

Order filed November 28, 2018 (ECF No. 27).

7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment
accordingly and close the case.
DATED this 3rd day of April, 2019.

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-3-