Jones v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE : This action is dismissed without prejudice based on Jones's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's December 11, 2023, order (ECF No. 6 ). 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 Jones wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. It is further ordered that Jones's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 2/7/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

ADRIAN JONES,
Plaintiff,

v.

5
6

Case No. 3:23-cv-00237-RCJ-CSD
ORDER

STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants.

7
8
9

Plaintiff Adrian Jones 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. 7). On December 11, 2023, this Court ordered

12

Jones to file an amended complaint by January 10, 2024. (ECF No. 6). The Court warned

13

Jones that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that

14

deadline. (Id. at 7.). That deadline expired and Jones did not file an amended complaint,

15

move for an extension, or otherwise respond.

16

I.

DISCUSSION

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 based on a party’s failure to obey a court

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

Malone, 833 F.2d at 130).

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

factor favors dismissal.
2

1

II.

CONCLUSION

2

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

3

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

4

prejudice based on Jones’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this

5

Court’s December 11, 2023, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment

6

accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed

7

case. If Jones wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case.

8
9

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

10
11

DATED THIS _7th__ day of February 2024.

12
13
14

ROBERT C. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

___