Wright v. Baca et al

Filing 5

ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court's January 15, 2019 order; Clerk directed to enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/22/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5
6
7
8

MICHAEL C. WRIGHT,

Case No. 3:18-cv-00118-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff

ORDER

v.
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
Defendants

9
10
11

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

12

former state prisoner. On January 15, 2019, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff

13

to file his updated address with this Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 3.) The 30-day period

14

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

15

to the Court’s order. Therefore, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice.

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

24

F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring

25

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

26

128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v.

27

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

28

to comply with local rules).

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the

19

Court within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff

20

fails to timely comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.”

21

(ECF No. 3 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from

22

his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address within thirty (30)

23

days.

24

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on

25

Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s January 15,

26

2019 order.

27

///

28

///
2

1

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

2

DATED THIS 22nd day of February 2019.

3
4

MIRANDA M. DU
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