Iden v. Ely State Prison et al

Filing 4

ORDER - This action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's Order dated February 21, 2020 (ECF No. 3 ).Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 4/13/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

RICHARD IDEN,

5
6
7
8

Case No. 3:20-cv-00108-RFB-CLB
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
ELY STATE PRISON, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Nevada

11

Department of Corrections filed a notice of emergency complaint. (ECF No. 1-1). On

12

February 21, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a complaint and a

13

fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400

14

within forty-five (45) days from the date of that order. (ECF No. 3 at 2). The 45-day period

15

has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a complaint or an application to proceed in

16

forma pauperis, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of

25

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal

26

for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of

27

address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming

28

dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

1

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with

2

local rules).

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a complaint and an application

21

to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee within forty-five (45) days expressly

22

stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order,

23

dismissal of this action may result.” (ECF No. 3 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate

24

warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file

25

a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee within

26

forty-five (45) days.

The fourth factor—public policy favoring

27

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice

28

based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a complaint or an application to proceed in forma

-2-

1

pauperis or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated February 21,

2

2020.

3
4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.
DATED: April 13, 2020.

6

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-