Williams v. NNCC

Filing 4

ORDER - It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to submit a complaint and either file a fully complete IFP application or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with th is Court's August 30, 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 Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 1/18/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJS)

Case 3:22-cv-00382-ART-CSD Document 4 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 3

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3
4
5
6
7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
TERRANCE WILLIAMS,
v.

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

Plaintiff,

ORDER

NNCC,

8
9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00382-ART-CSD

Defendant.
Pro se Plaintiff Terrance Williams, an inmate in the custody of the Nevada
Department of Corrections, initiated this action by submitting a document titled
Temporary Injunction. (ECF No. 1-1). He did not submit a complaint, and he
neither paid the $402 filing fee nor submitted an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP application”). On August 30, 2022, this Court gave Plaintiff until
October 31, 2022, to (i) submit a complaint, and (ii) file a fully complete IFP
application or pay the $402 filing fee. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff was warned the action
could be dismissed if he failed to comply with these directives. (Id. at 2). The
October 31, 2022 deadline expired, and Plaintiff did not file a complaint, submit
a fully complete IFP application, or pay the full $402 filing fee.
DISCUSSION
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets, and “[i]n
the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where
appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los
Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based
on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v.
King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to
comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of
address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

1

Case 3:22-cv-00382-ART-CSD Document 4 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 3

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th

8

Cir. 1987)).

9

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

10

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

11

dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants,

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.

17

The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

2

Case 3:22-cv-00382-ART-CSD Document 4 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 3

1

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

2

cannot proceed until and unless Plaintiff submits a complaint and either files a

3

fully complete IFP application or pays the filing fee, the only alternative is to enter

4

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

5

order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite

6

resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an

7

exception: there is no hint that Plaintiff needs additional time or evidence that he

8

did not receive the Court’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful

9

alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal.

10

CONCLUSION

11

Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that

12

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

13

dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to submit a complaint and

14

either file a fully complete IFP application or pay the full $402 filing fee in

15

compliance with this Court’s August 30, 2022 order. The Clerk of Court is

16

directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents

17

may be filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he

18

must file a complaint in a new case.

19

DATED THIS 18th day of January 2023.

20
21
22
23
24

ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

3