Trinidad, Jr. v. United Parcel Service

Filing 45

ORDER that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with ECF No. 43 Order. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

DANIEL TRINIDAD, JR.,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00353-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER

v.
8
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
9
Defendant.
10
11

On August 7, 2018, Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint by

12

September 7, 2018. (ECF No. 43 at 9.) That deadline has has now expired, and Plaintiff

13

has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended

17

complaint by September 7, 2018, expressly stated: “Failure to file an amended complaint

18

by September 7, 2018, will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice.” (ECF No. 43

19

at 9.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

20

noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint.

21
22
23

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on
Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s order.
DATED THIS 10th day of September 2018.

24
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2