Ferguson v. State of Nevada
Filing
7
ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Courts November 17, 2017, order; clerk directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/27/2017. (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
ANGELO FERGUSON,
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
13
Case No. 3:17-cv-00668-MMD-WGC
ORDER
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
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 November 17, 2017, this Court issued an order denying the
17
application to proceed in forma pauperis, without prejudice, because the application was
18
incomplete. (ECF No. 6 at 1-2). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully complete
19
application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400.00 within thirty
20
(30) days from the date of that order. (Id. at 2). The thirty-day period has now expired,
21
and Plaintiff has not filed another application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full
22
filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.
23
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the
24
exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .
25
dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
26
(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure
27
to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.
28
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance
1
with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for
2
failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856
3
F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring
4
pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833
5
F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson
6
v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and
7
failure to comply with local rules).
8
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey
9
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors:
10
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
11
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
12
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.
13
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;
14
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
15
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in
16
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,
17
weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs
18
in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
19
unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See
20
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor — public policy
21
favoring disposition of cases on their merits — is greatly outweighed by the factors in
22
favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to
23
obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”
24
requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d
25
at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file another application to proceed in forma
26
pauperis or pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER
27
ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, dismissal of this action
28
may result.” (ECF No. 6 at 3). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would
2
1
result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file another application to proceed
2
in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days.
3
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on
4
Plaintiff’s failure to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full
5
filing fee in compliance with this Court’s November 17, 2017, order.
6
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.
7
DATED THIS 27th day of December 2017.
8
9
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?