Frimmel v. Aranas et al

Filing 43

ORDER - This action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court's January 12, 2021, Order (ECF No. 41 ). Clerk will close the case and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 2/17/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

Download PDF
Case 3:18-cv-00144-RCJ-WGC Document 43 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 MICHAEL A. FRIMMEL, Case No. 3:18-cv-00144-RCJ-WGC 4 Plaintiff 5 6 ORDER v. ROMEO ARANAS et al., Defendants 7 8 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 9 by a former state prisoner. On January 12, 2021, this Court issued an order directing 10 Plaintiff to file his updated address with this Court on or before February 12, 2021. (ECF 11 No. 41). The deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or 12 13 14 15 16 otherwise responded to the Court’s order. District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 17 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 18 19 20 21 22 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 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) (affirming 23 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 24 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 25 local rules). 26 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 27 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 28 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 1 Case 3:18-cv-00144-RCJ-WGC Document 43 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 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. See 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. 5 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 6 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 7 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 8 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 9 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 10 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 11 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 12 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 13 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 14 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 15 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the 16 17 18 19 20 Court on or before February 12, 2021 expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” (ECF No. 41 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address by February 12, 2021. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 21 22 23 24 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s January 12, 2021, order. It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment accordingly. 25 26 DATED THIS 17th day of February 2021. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 2

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?