Tagle v. State of Nevada et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:17-cv-00510-MMD-WGC
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
On October 23, 2017, plaintiff was directed to pay the full filing fee within thirty
(30) days. (ECF No. 11.) That deadline has has now expired, and Plaintiff has not
submitted the filing fee or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.
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) (dismissal for noncompliance
with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for
failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856
F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (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) (dismissal for failure to comply with court
order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (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 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. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833
F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,
weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in
favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.
See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor ─ public
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits ─ is greatly outweighed by the factors
in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure
to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of
alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33;
Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order expressly cautioned: “Plaintiff must pay
the full filing fee within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff’s failure to do so will result in dismissal of
this action.” (ECF No. 11.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would
result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to pay the filing fee.
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.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?