Tagle v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 12

ORDER that this action is dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to timely pay the filing fee. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/27/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

VICTOR TAGLE,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00510-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

9

ORDER

v.
10
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13

On October 23, 2017, plaintiff was directed to pay the full filing fee within thirty

14

(30) days. (ECF No. 11.) That deadline has has now expired, and Plaintiff has not

15

submitted the filing fee or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

16

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

17

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

18

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order expressly cautioned: “Plaintiff must pay

19

the full filing fee within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff’s failure to do so will result in dismissal of

20

this action.” (ECF No. 11.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would

21

result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to pay the filing fee.

22
23
24

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to
timely pay the filing fee.
DATED THIS 27th day of November 2017.

25
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2