Frimmel v. Aranas et al
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)
Case 3:18-cv-00144-RCJ-WGC Document 43 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MICHAEL A. FRIMMEL,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00144-RCJ-WGC
ROMEO ARANAS et al.,
This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
by a former state prisoner. On January 12, 2021, this Court issued an order directing
Plaintiff to file his updated address with this Court on or before February 12, 2021. (ECF
No. 41). The deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or
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.
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for
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
dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,
1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with
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
Case 3:18-cv-00144-RCJ-WGC Document 43 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 2
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.
Here, 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 file his updated address with the
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
Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s January 12,
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment
DATED THIS 17th day of February 2021.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?