Arpino v. Nevada Supreme Court et al

Filing 22

ORDER that this case is dismissed without prejudice; Clerk directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/16/2018. (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

JOHN FRANCIS ARPINO,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00608-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

v.
11
NEVADA SUPREME COURT, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

This Court’s April 10, 2018 Order stated that “[t]his action will be dismissed without

15

prejudice unless Plaintiff pays the $400.00 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days of entry

16

of this order.” (ECF No. 15 at 3.) To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or otherwise

17

responded to the Court’s April 10, 2018 Order.

18

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

19

of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a

20

case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court

21

may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action,

22

failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran,

23

46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.

24

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an

25

order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.

26

1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

rules).

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d

9

at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130.

10

Here, the Court finds that the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously

11

resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of

12

dismissal. The third factor—risk of prejudice to the defendant—also weighs in favor of

13

dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay

14

in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air

15

West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring

16

disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of

17

dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the

18

court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”

19

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

20

at 1424. The Court’s April 10, 2018 Order expressly stated that “[t]his action will be

21

dismissed without prejudice unless Plaintiff pays the $400.00 filing fee in full within thirty

22

(30) days of entry of this order.” (ECF No. 15 at 3.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning

23

that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s Order to pay the filing

24

fee.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1
2

It is therefore ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice based on
Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee in compliance with this Court’s April 10, 2018 Order.

3

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

4

DATED THIS 16th day of May 2018.

5
6
MIRANDA M. DU
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