Almy v. Adams et al

Filing 47

ORDER - This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court's March 3, 2022, order. The Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/4/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12

KEVIN ALMY,
v.
C/O MINOR ADAMS, et al.,

Case No. 3:17-CV-00390-RCJ-CSD
Plaintiff,

ORDER

Defendants.

13

On March 3, 2022, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file his updated address

14

with this Court on or before April 2, 2022. (ECF No. 42). The deadline has now expired, and

15

Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of
that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.
Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may
dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th
Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring
amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming
dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of
address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal
for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)
(affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court
order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s
1

1
2
3

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the
risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831;

4

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali,

5

46 F.3d at 53.

6

Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously

7

resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of

8

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

9

since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading

10

ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th

11

Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is

12

greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning

13

to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the

14

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

15

33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

with the Court on or before March 12, 2021, expressly stated: “Failure to comply with thus rule
may result in the dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as deemed
appropriate by the Court. LR IA-3-1.” (ECF No. 42). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that
dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address
by April 2, 2022.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s March 3,
2022, order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly
and close the case.
DATED This 4th day of April, 2022.

27

ROBERT C. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2