Perez-Ruiz v. Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 5

ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure comply with ECF No. 3 Order; the application to proceed in forma pauperis ECF No. 1 is denied as moot; Clerk directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 11/6/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

JOSE PEREZ-RUIZ,

10

Case No. 3:17-cv-00635-RCJ-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
11
12

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

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

15

a former state prisoner. On August 31, 2018, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff

16

to file his updated address with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) The

17

thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or

18
19
20
21
22

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.

23
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance
24
25
26
27
28

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
1

1
2
3

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

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; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor
of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey
the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”
requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779
F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the
Court within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to
timely comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF
No. 3 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his
noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address within thirty (30) days.
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on
Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s August 31,
2018, order.
It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1)
is denied as moot.
2

1

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

2
3

DATED: THIS6th day of November, 2018.
DATED This ____ day of October 2018.

4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3