Tagle v. U.S. Government et al

Filing 12

ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice; Clerk directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/22/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
***
8
VICTOR TAGLE,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00509-MMD-VPC

9
Plaintiff,
10
11
12

ORDER

v.
U.S. GOVERNMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

On January 11, 2018, the Court directed Plaintiff to provide an updated address

15

pursuant to Nevada Local Rule of Practice IA 3-1 as it appears that Plaintiff is no longer

16

housed at High Desert State Prison. (ECF No. 10.) The Court gave Plaintiff thirty (30)

17

days to comply with its order and cautioned that failure to comply may result in dismissal

18

of this action. (Id.) The 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an

19

updated address 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); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for

27

failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of

28

address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal

1

for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th

2

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

address within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “… IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall

22

file an updated address with this Court within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of

23

this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this

24

order, the Court shall dismiss this action without prejudice.” (ECF No. 9) Thus, Plaintiff

25

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

26

Court’s order to file an updated address within (30) days.

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 January 11,

3

2018, order.

4
5

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.
DATED THIS 22nd day of February 2018.

6
7
8
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3