Buckley v. Washoe County Detention Facility

Filing 10

ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Buckley's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's September 2, 2022, order (ECF No. 8 ). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgmen t accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Buckley wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. Buckley's IFP application is (ECF No. 7 ) is denied as moot. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 11/16/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:22-cv-00268-ART-CSD Document 10 Filed 11/16/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3
4
5
6
7
8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CLYDE BUCKLEY, III,
v.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00268-ART-CSD
Plaintiff,

ORDER

WASHOE COUNTY DETENTION
FACILITY,
Defendant.

9
10
11

Plaintiff Clyde Buckley III brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. §

12

1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while

13

incarcerated at Washoe County Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1.) On

14

September 2, 2022, this Court ordered Buckley to file an amended complaint

15

within 30 days. (ECF No. 8 at 5.) The Court warned Buckley that the action could

16

be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline. (Id. at 6.)

17

That deadline expired and Buckley did not file an amended complaint, move for

18

an extension, or otherwise respond.

19

DISCUSSION

20

Federal District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and

21

“[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where

22

appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los

23

Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based

24

on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v.

25

King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to

26

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)

28

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

1

Case 3:22-cv-00268-ART-CSD Document 10 Filed 11/16/22 Page 2 of 3

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217,

6

1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130).

7

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

8

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

9

dismissing Buckley’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also

10

weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the

11

occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or

12

prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir.

13

1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

14

merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.

15

The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic

16

alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the

17

Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983,

18

992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before

19

the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord

20

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that

21

“the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted

22

pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as

23

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

24

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

25

Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally

26

dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.”

27

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action

28

cannot realistically proceed until and unless Buckley files an amended complaint,

2

Case 3:22-cv-00268-ART-CSD Document 10 Filed 11/16/22 Page 3 of 3

1

the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the

2

reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and

3

squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate

4

that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Buckley needs additional

5

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

6

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

7

the fifth factor favors dismissal.

8

CONCLUSION

9

Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that

10

they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is

11

dismissed without prejudice based on Buckley’s failure to file an amended

12

complaint in compliance with this Court’s September 2, 2022, order. The Clerk

13

of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other

14

documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Buckley wishes to pursue his

15

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

16
17

It is further ordered that Buckley’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 7) is denied as moot.

18
19

DATED THIS 16th day of November 2022.

20
21
22
23

ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

3