Inkenbrandt v. Watts 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 July 19, 2018, order and for failure to state a claim; Clerk directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/28/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

BRIAN SCOTT INKENBRANDT,

10
11
12

Case No. 3:17-cv-00531-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
DAN WATTS, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by

16

a pre-trial detainee in the custody of the White Pine County Jail. On July 19, 2018, the

17

Court issued an order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff

18

to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 6 at 9.) The thirty-day period

19

has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded

20

to the Court’s order.1

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

1

The order that was mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No.
8.) Plaintiff failed to update his mailing address as required under LR IA 3-1.

1

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

2

(affirming dismissal of case for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

7

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with

8

local rules).

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

requirement. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779

26

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within

27

thirty days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to timely file an

28

amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be

-2-

1

dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 6 at 9.) Thus, Plaintiff had

2

adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s

3

order to file an amended complaint within thirty days.

4

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on

5

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s July 19,

6

2018, order and for failure to state a claim.

7

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

8
9

DATED THIS 28th day of August 2018.

10
11

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-3-