Suuni v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 10

ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an inmate account statement or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court's July 19, 2018, order; Plaintiff's IFP Application (ECF No. 8 ) is denied as moot; Clerk directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/27/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

LEMUELU PATA SAUNI,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 3:18-cv-00250-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
STATE OF NEVADA et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

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

16

a state prisoner. On July 19, 2018, this Court issued an order granting Plaintiff one final

17

opportunity to file the documents necessary to file a fully complete application to proceed

18

in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 9.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an inmate account

19

statement or pay the full filing fee of $400.00 within thirty days from the date of that order.

20

(Id. at 2). The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an inmate

21

account statement, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

22

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

23

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

24

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

25

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure

26

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

27

See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissing case for

28

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

1

(dismissing case for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

2

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with

3

local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S.

4

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissing case for failure to comply

5

with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissing

6

case for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously

15

resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of

16

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

17

dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay

18

in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an inmate account statement or

25

pay the full filing fee within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that,

26

if Plaintiff fails to timely file an inmate account statement, the Court will dismiss the case,

27

without prejudice, for Plaintiff to file a new case when he is able to acquire the necessary

28

documents to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis.” (ECF No. 9 at 2.)

-2-

1

Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance

2

with the Court’s order to file an inmate account statement or pay the full filing fee within

3

thirty days.

4

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

5

Plaintiff’s failure to file an inmate account statement or pay the full filing fee in compliance

6

with this Court’s July 19, 2018, order.

7
8
9

It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8)
is denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

10
11

DATED THIS 27th day of August 2018.

12
13

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-