Slaughter v. Koehn et al
Filing
7
ORDER that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's January 14, 2019 order and for failure to state a claim; the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 ) is denied as moot; Clerk directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/29/2019. (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
RICKIE SLAUGHTER,
10
11
12
Case No. 3:17-cv-00571-RCJ-CBC
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
DR. KOEHN, 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 state prisoner.
On January 14, 2019, the Court issued an order dismissing the
17
complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within
18
thirty days. (ECF No. 5 at 8). Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise
19
responded to the Court’s order.
20
dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where
21
appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,
22
782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based
23
on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply
24
with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for
25
noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.
26
1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);
27
Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with
28
local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S.
District courts have the inherent power to control their
1
Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with
2
court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for
3
lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
4
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey
5
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors:
6
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
7
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
8
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.
9
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;
10
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
11
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in
12
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,
13
weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs
14
in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
15
unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See
16
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy
17
favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor
18
of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey
19
the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”
20
requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779
21
F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within
22
thirty days expressly stated: “If Plaintiff does not timely file a first amended complaint, the
23
Court may dismiss the entire action with prejudice without further notice.” (ECF No. 5 at
24
8).
25
noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint within thirty days.
Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his
26
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on
27
Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s January 14,
28
2019 order and for failure to state a claim.
-2-
1
2
3
It is further ordered that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is
denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
4
5
DATED THIS
29th day of May, 2019.
day of
2019.
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?