Allen v. Naphcare et al

Filing 13

ORDER - This action is dismissed without prejudice based on Allen's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's March 31, 2022, order. The applications to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 6 , 8 ) are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Allen wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/6/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL)

Case 3:21-cv-00513-MMD-CSD Document 13 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

RONALD LEE ALLEN,

Case No. 3:21-cv-00513-MMD-CSD
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER

v.
8
NAPHCARE, et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
11

Pro se Plaintiff Ronald Lee Allen brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C.

12

§ 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated

13

at the Washoe County Detention Facility. (ECF No. 10.) On March 31, 2022, the Court

14

ordered Allen to file an amended complaint by May 2, 2022. (ECF No. 9 at 7.) The Court

15

warned Allen that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint

16

by that deadline. (Id.) That deadline has expired, and Allen has not filed an amended

17

complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond.1

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.

23

1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to

24

keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.

25

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss

26

an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in

27
28

1Because

Allen has not updated his address with the Court, his mail is being
returned as undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.)

Case 3:21-cv-00513-MMD-CSD Document 13 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 3

1

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk

2

of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

3

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine

4

Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal

5

Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)).

6

The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation

7

and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Allen’s

8

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

9

because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing

10

a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542

11

F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of

12

cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.

13

The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can

14

be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider

15

dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining

16

that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order

17

does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th

18

Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that

19

“implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s

20

order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled

21

with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish).

22

Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a

23

case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

24

F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and

25

unless Allen files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order

26

setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only

27

delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here

28

do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Allen needs
2

Case 3:21-cv-00513-MMD-CSD Document 13 Filed 05/06/22 Page 3 of 3

1

additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening order. Setting

2

another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth

3

factor favors dismissal. In sum, the Court finds that the dismissal factors weigh in favor of

4

dismissal.

5

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on

6

Allen’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s March 31,

7

2022, order.

8
9

It is further ordered that the applications to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos.
6, 8) are denied as moot.

10

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

11

No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Allen wishes to pursue his

12

claims, he must file a complaint in a new case.

13

DATED THIS 6th Day of May 2022.

14
15
16

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3