Stevenson v. Williams 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 1/15/2019, order; Clerk directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/11/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
JOSEPH STEVENSON,

Case No. 3:18-cv-00148-RCJ-WGC

4
Plaintiff
5
6

ORDER

v.
BRIAN WILLIAMS 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 15, 2019, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff

10

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

11

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

12
13
14
15
16

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) (dismissal for noncompliance
18
19
20
21
22

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

23

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

24

failure to comply with local rules).

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
1

1
2
3

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.

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16
17
18
19
20

fails to timely comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.”
(ECF No. 3 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from
his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address within thirty (30)
days.
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 15,

21
2019, order.
22

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

23
24

11th day of February 2019.
DATED THIS ____ day of March, 2019.

25
26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2