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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?