Williams v. Secretary U.S. Army et al
Filing
11
ORDER - It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Williams's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's December 29, 2023, and February 13, 2024, orders. 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. It is further ordered that Williams's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/7/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLS)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
7
8
9
10
THOMAS L. WILLIAMS, et al.,
v.
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00509-MMD-CSD
ORDER
SECRETARY OF THE U.S. ARMY, et al.,
Defendants.
11
12
Plaintiff Thomas L. Williams brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
13
to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at
14
Washoe County Detention Center (“WCDC”). (ECF No. 1-1.) On December 29, 2023, this
15
Court issued a screening order dismissing the complaint, dismissing all of the other
16
Plaintiffs from the case, and giving Williams leave to file an amended complaint by
17
January 28, 2024. (ECF No. 6.) The Court warned Williams that the action could be
18
dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline. (Id. at 6.)
19
The Court’s screening order came back as undeliverable. However, based on
20
WCDC’s website, it appeared that Plaintiff was still being detained at WCDC. The Court
21
resent the screening order and extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended
22
complaint until March 15, 2024. (ECF No. 10.) The resent order did not come back as
23
undeliverable, suggesting that Williams received it. The March 15, 2024, deadline has
24
passed, and Williams did not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or
25
otherwise respond to the Court’s orders.
26
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the
27
exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .
28
dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
1
1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or
2
comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)
3
(affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep
4
court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)
5
(dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss an
6
action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in
7
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk
8
of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
9
merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine
10
Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130).
11
The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation
12
and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Williams’s
13
claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal
14
because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing
15
a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542
16
F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of
17
cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.
18
The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can
19
be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider
20
dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining
21
that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order
22
does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th
23
Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that
24
“implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s
25
order as satisfying this element[,]” e.g., the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled with
26
the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). Courts
27
“need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but
28
must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d
2
1
1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and
2
unless Williams files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter another order
3
setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only
4
delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here
5
do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Williams needs
6
additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening order. Setting
7
another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth
8
factor favors dismissal.
9
Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they
10
weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without
11
prejudice based on Williams’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this
12
Court’s December 29, 2023, and February 13, 2024, orders. The Clerk of Court is directed
13
to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in
14
this now-closed case. If Williams wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in
15
a new case.
16
17
18
It is further ordered that Williams’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 1) is denied as moot.
DATED THIS 7th day of May 2024.
19
20
21
22
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?