Speech v. Burchett

Filing 21

ORDER that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to comply wit this Court's Order ECF No. 14 ; Clerk directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/25/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
LATRELL SPEECH,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00713-MMD-WGC

4
Plaintiff
5
6

ORDER

v.
SCOTT BURCHETT, et al.,
Defendants

7
8

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

9

former state prisoner. On January 23, 2019, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff

10

to file his updated address with this Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 14.) The thirty-day

11

period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise

12

responded to the Court’s order. Plaintiff also did not appear at his scheduled early inmate

13

mediation conference. (See ECF No. 18.)

14

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

15

exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .

16

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.

17

1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to

18

prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See

19

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with

20

local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure

21

to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

22

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se

23

plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128,

24

130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v.

25

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure

26

to comply with local rules).

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court

17

within 30 days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely

18

comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case with prejudice.” (ECF No. 14 at

19

2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

20

noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address within 30 days.

21

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on

22

Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s January 23,

23

2019, order.

24

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

25

DATED THIS 25th day of February 2019.

26
27

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

2