Regaspi v. Northern Nevada Correctional Center Maintenance Department
Filing
7
ORDER - This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with ECF No. 6 Order. Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 ) and Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 1 -3) are denied as moot. Clerk shall close the case and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/6/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
ANDREW REGASPI,
Plaintiff
7
10
ORDER
v.
8
9
Case No. 3:18-cv-00274-MMD-WGC
NORTHERN NEVADA CORRECTIONAL
CENTER MAINTENANCE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant
11
12
This action began with a pro se civil rights Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
13
1983 by a state prisoner. On August 19, 2019, the Court issued an order dismissing the
14
Complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within
15
30 days. (ECF No. 3 at 7.) The Court also deferred a decision on the motion for
16
appointment of counsel until after Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Id.) On
17
September 12, 2019, upon motion by Plaintiff, the Court granted Plaintiff until December
18
18, 2019, to either file a first amended complaint or have an attorney enter a notice of
19
appearance in this case. (ECF No. 6.) The deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not
20
filed a first amended complaint and no attorney has entered a notice of appearance in this
21
case.
22
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise
23
of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a
24
case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
25
A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an
26
action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v.
27
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local
28
rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for
1
failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856
2
F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule
3
requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal
4
Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with
5
court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming
6
dismissal 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. See
12
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;
13
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 the
22
court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”
23
requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d
24
at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint or have an
25
attorney enter a notice of appearance on or before December 18, 2019, expressly stated:
26
“It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to file a timely first amended complaint or have an
27
attorney enter a notice of appearance by the deadline, the Court will dismiss this action
28
with prejudice.” (ECF No. 6.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would
2
1
result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file a first amended complaint or
2
have an attorney enter a notice of appearance.
3
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s
4
failure to file a first amended complaint or have an attorney enter a notice of appearance
5
in compliance with this Court’s September 12, 2019, order.
6
7
8
9
10
11
It is further ordered that the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-3) is
denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is
denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall close the case and enter judgment
accordingly.
12
13
DATED THIS 6th day of January 2020.
14
15
16
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?