Clarke v. Baca et al

Filing 9

ORDER dismissing without prejudice this action based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with ECF No. 6 Order; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/20/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
ANTHONY CLARKE,

Case No. 3:18-cv-00291-RCJ-CBC

4
Plaintiff
5
6

ORDER

v.
ISIDRO BACA 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 September 18, 2019, this Court issued an order directing

10

Plaintiff to file his updated address with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 6.)

11

The thirty-day period 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

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).

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

The fourth factor—public policy favoring

Court within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff
fails to timely comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice.”
(ECF No. 6 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

21
Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s September 18,
22
23

2019, order.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly.

24
25

DATED THIS 20th day of December 2019.

26
27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2