Blanco v. Baca et al

Filing 5

ORDER dismissing without prejudice this action based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with the Court's ECF No. 3 Order; denying as moot ECF No. 1 IFP Application; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/2/2018. (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

MICHELL BLANCO,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00239-MMD-VPC

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
ISIDRO BACA, 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 state prisoner. On March 22, 2018, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file

16

his updated address with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 3 at 1.) The thirty-

17

day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise

18

responded to the Court’s order.

19

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

20

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

21

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court

2

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

3

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423; Malone, 833

10

F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

20

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (citations omitted). The Court’s

21

order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court within thirty (30) days

22

expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with

23

this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Thus,

24

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

25

the Court’s order to file his updated address within thirty (30) days.

26

///

27

///

28
2

1

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on

2

Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s March 22,

3

2018 order.

4
5

It is further ordered the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is
denied as moot.

6

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

7

DATED THIS 2nd day of May 2018.

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