Williams v. NNCC

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND CLOSING CASE. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/9/2022. The Court finds that they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Williamss failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Courts January 28, 2022, order. 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 Williams wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJD)

Case 3:22-cv-00048-RCJ-CLB Document 4 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 3
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

TERRANCE E. WILLIAMS,

5
6
7

v.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00048-RCJ-CLB
Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING
CASE

N.N.C.C.
Defendant.

8
9

Plaintiff Terrance Williams brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to

10

redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Northern

11

Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1-1). On January 28, 2022, this Court ordered

12

Williams to file a complaint and either a fully complete application to proceed in forma

13

pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before March 29, 2022. (ECF No. 3). The

14

Court warned Williams that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete

15

application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402

16

filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. (Id. at 3). That deadline expired and Williams

17

did not file a complaint and either a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis

18

or pay the full $402 filing fee. Nor did Williams otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

19

I.

DISCUSSION

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

Case 3:22-cv-00048-RCJ-CLB Document 4 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 3
1

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

2

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of

3

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

4

Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting

5

Malone v. U.S. Postal 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 dismissing Williams’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 last 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 Williams files a complaint and either a fully complete application to proceed in

26

forma pauperis or pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter

27

a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is

28

that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The
2

Case 3:22-cv-00048-RCJ-CLB Document 4 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 3
1

circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint

2

that Williams needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s order.

3

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

4

the fifth factor favors dismissal.

5

II.

CONCLUSION

6

Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they

7

weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without

8

prejudice based on Williams’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in

9

forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s January 28,

10

2022, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this

11

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

12

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

13
14

DATED THIS 9th

day of

May

2022.

15
16
17

ROBERT C. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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