Stallworth v. Dzurenda et al
Filing
4
ORDER DISMISSING CASE - This action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court's December 15, 2017, order (ECF No. 3 ). Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/24/2018. (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
HADARI A. STALLWORTH,
10
11
12
13
Case No. 3:17-cv-00667-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
JAMES DZURENDA, et al.,
Defendants.
14
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
15
a state prisoner. On December 15, 2017, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to
16
file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of
17
$400.00 within thirty (30) days from the date of that order. (ECF No. 3 at 2). The thirty-
18
day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma
19
pauperis, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.
20
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the
21
exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .
22
dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
23
(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure
24
to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.
25
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance
26
with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for
27
failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856
28
F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring
1
pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833
2
F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson
3
v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and
4
failure to comply with local rules).
5
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey
6
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors:
7
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
8
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
9
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.
10
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;
11
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
12
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in
13
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,
14
weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs
15
in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
16
unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See
17
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy
18
favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor
19
of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey
20
the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”
21
requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d
22
at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma
23
pauperis or pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER
24
ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, dismissal of this action
25
may result.” (ECF No. 3 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would
26
result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an application to proceed in
27
forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days.
28
///
2
1
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on
2
Plaintiff’s failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee
3
in compliance with this Court’s December 15, 2017, order.
4
5
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.
DATED THIS 24th day of January 2018.
6
7
MIRANDA M. DU
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?