Goodrum v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 17

ORDER - It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Mitchell Goodrum's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's July 18 and October 15, 2024, orders. The Clerk of Cou rt is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Goodrum wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the required filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status. It is further ordered that Goodrum's application to proceed in formapauperis ECF No. 4 is denied as moot. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 11/25/2024. (For Distribution by law library.)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6
7
8

MITCHELL KEITH GOODRUM,

Case No. 3:23-cv-00472-ART-CSD

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10
11

Plaintiff Mitchell Goodrum brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C.

12

§ 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while

13

incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 6). On October

14

15, 2024, this Court ordered Goodrum to file an amended complaint by November

15

14, 2024. (ECF No. 16). That was the second extension of time the Court granted

16

Goodrum to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 10). The Court warned

17

Goodrum this action could be dismissed if he failed to timely file an amended

18

complaint. (Id. at 20). The second deadline to amend has expired and Goodrum

19

did not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond.

20

DISCUSSION

21

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

22

the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of

28

address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

1

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, 833 F.2d at 130).

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.

16

The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not

22

exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but

23

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

24

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

25

until Goodrum files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a third

26

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

27

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

28

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

2

1

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

2

the fifth factor favors dismissal.

3

CONCLUSION

4

Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that

5

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

6

dismissed without prejudice based on Mitchell Goodrum’s failure to file an

7

amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s July 18 and October 15,

8

2024, orders. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and

9

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

10

Goodrum wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case

11

and either pay the required filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status.

12
13

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

14
15

Dated this 25th day of November, 2024.

16
17
18
19

ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3