Clausen v. Nevada Dept of Corrections et al
Filing
9
ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's November 6, 2018, order (ECF No. 7 ). The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4 ) is denied as moot. Clerk shall close the case and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/14/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
KEVIN CLAUSEN,
4
5
6
7
Plaintiff
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
v.
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS et al.,
Defendants
8
9
Case No. 3:17-cv-00522-RCJ-CBC
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
a state prisoner. On November 6, 2018, the Court issued an order dismissing the
complaint with leave to amend Count I and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
within 28 days. (ECF No. 7 at 6). The 28-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has
not filed an amended complaint 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
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
2
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
3
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.
4
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;
5
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
6
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in
7
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,
8
weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs
9
in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
10
unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See
11
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy
12
favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor
13
of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey
14
the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”
15
requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779
16
F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 28
17
days expressly stated: “If Plaintiff does not timely file a first amended complaint, the Court
18
may dismiss Count I with prejudice without further notice.” (ECF No. 7 at 6). Thus, Plaintiff
19
had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the
20
Court’s order to file an amended complaint within 28 days.
21
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on
22
Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s November
23
6, 2018, order.
It is further ordered that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is
24
25
denied as moot.
26
///
27
///
28
///
-2-
1
2
3
4
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall close the case and enter judgment
accordingly.
Dated this 14th day of January, 2019.
DATED THIS ____ day of 2018.
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?