Monghur v. State of Nevada et al
ORDER - This action is dismissed without prejudice based on the Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court's November 13, 2020, Order (ECF No. 3 ), and the pending application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 ) is denied as moot. Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/6/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)
Case 3:20-cv-00103-JAD-CLB Document 5 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4 BRANDON DEMARLO MONGHUR,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00103-JAD-CLB
STATE OF NEVADA et. al.,
and Closing Case
Plaintiff Brandon Demarlo Monghur brings this civil-rights lawsuit to redress
10 constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while detained at Ely State Prison. On
11 November 13, 2020, this Court ordered the plaintiff to update his address within 30 days of the
12 date of that order. 1 That deadline expired without an updated address from the plaintiff, and his
13 mail from this Court is being returned as undeliverable. 2
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of
15 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 3 A
16 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a
17 court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 4 In determining whether to dismiss an action
ECF No. 3.
ECF No. 4.
Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 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 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,
1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Case 3:20-cv-00103-JAD-CLB Document 5 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 2
1 on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious
2 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
3 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the
4 availability of less drastic alternatives. 5
The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the
6 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. The
7 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a
8 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading
9 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. 6 A court’s warning to a party that its failure to
10 obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of
11 alternatives” requirement, 7 and that warning was given here. 8 The fourth factor—the public
12 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors
13 favoring dismissal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED without prejudice
15 based on the plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s
16 November 13, 2020, order, and the pending IFP application [ECF No.1] is DENIED as moot.
17 The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.
18 If Monghur wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case.
Dated: January 6, 2021
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey
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.
See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.
ECF No. 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?