Lefranc v. Elko County et al

Filing 15

ORDER - This action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's February 5, 2021, and April 12, 2021, orders (ECF Nos. 9 and 14 ) and for failure to state a claim. Clerk will close this case and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 6/3/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

EFREN SANTIAGO LEFRANC,

4
5
6
7

Case No. 3:20-cv-00406-RFB-CLB
Plaintiff

ORDER

v.
ELKO COUNTY et al.,
Defendants

8
9

This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

10

1983 by a county inmate who later transferred into the custody of the Nevada Department

11

of Corrections (“NDOC”). On February 5, 2021, the Court issued an order dismissing the

12

complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within

13

30 days. (ECF No. 9 at 9). The Court eventually granted Plaintiff until May 21, 2021, to

14

file an amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 12, 14). The deadline has now expired, and

15

Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s last

16

order extending the deadline to May 21, 2021.

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 an amended complaint by May

21

21, 2021, expressly stated: “If Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint, the

22

Court will recommend dismissal of this case with prejudice for failure to state a claim.”

23

(ECF No. 14 at 1). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from

24

his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint by the deadline.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

-2-

The fourth factor—public policy favoring

1

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on

2

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s February 5,

3

2021 and April 12, 2021, orders and for failure to state a claim.

4
5

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close this case and enter judgment
accordingly.

6
7

DATED THIS 3rd day of June 2021.

8
9

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-3-