Booth v. Lakes Crossing Center et al

Filing 6

ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based onPlaintiff's failure to file a certified copy of his trust fund account statement in compliancewith this Court's October 6, 2017, order.It is further ordered that the appli cation to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 )is denied as moot.It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/14/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

WILLIAM WARREN BOOTH,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00600-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

v.
11
LAKES CROSSING CENTER et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

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

15

a county inmate. On October 6, 2017, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file

16

a certified copy of his trust fund account statement within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 3 at

17

1.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a certified copy of

18

his trust fund account statement or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.1

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s

23

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

24

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
28

1The

order was returned to the Court as undeliverable. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff has
failed to notify the Court of any change in his mailing address as required under LR IA
3-1.

1

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply

2

with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v.

3

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply

4

with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal

5

for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33;

23

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a certified copy

24

of his trust fund account statement expressly stated: “Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from

25

the date of this Order to do so, or his action may be dismissed.” (ECF No. 3 at 1.) Thus,

26

Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with

27

the Court’s order to file a certified copy of his trust fund account statement within thirty

28

(30) days.

2

1

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on

2

Plaintiff’s failure to file a certified copy of his trust fund account statement in compliance

3

with this Court’s October 6, 2017, order.

4
5
6
7

It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1)
is denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.
DATED THIS 14th day of November 2017.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE