Howell v. Meares et al

Filing 18

ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to pay the $400.00 filing fee in compliance with this Court's order (ECF No. 17 ). Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 9/12/2019. (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

DAVID HOWELL,

10

Case No. 3:17-cv-00682-RCJ-CBC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
11
MEARES, et. al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

15

1983 by a state prisoner. On January 24, 2019, this Court issued an order denying

16

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because Plaintiff had “three strikes”

17

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 12). The Court informed Plaintiff that if he

18

did not pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within thirty days of the date of that order, the

19

Court would dismiss the action without prejudice. (Id.) Plaintiff subsequently filed multiple

20

requests for extension of time to file the fee, which the Court granted. (ECF No. 14, 15,

21

16, 17). The extended deadline for filing the fee was August 1, 2019, and Plaintiff has

22

not paid the full filing fee of $400.00.

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

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance
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
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
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors:
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,
weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs
in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of
unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy
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 pay the full filing fee within thirty

27
28

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file the
required fees by August 1, 2019, the Court may dismiss the case without prejudice without
further notice.” (ECF No. 17 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal
would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to timely pay the full filing fee.
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on
Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $400.00 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
DATED: This 12th day ofday of
September, 2019. 2019.
DATED THIS

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

3