Williams v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 7

ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to indicate which type of lawsuit he is trying to pursue and either pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 or petition in a new case. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 2/6/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1
2
3
4
5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
THOMAS L. WILLIAMS,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

6
7

Case No. 3:23-cv-00511-ART-CSD

Defendants.
Plaintiff Thomas L. Williams attempted to initiate an action in federal court.
(ECF No. 1-1). However, because Plaintiff initiated this action on a civil rights
form and then filed a notice that he had filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus,
it was unclear to the Court what type of case Plaintiff intended to bring. (ECF
No. 4 at 1). On October 31, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file on or before
November 30, 2023, one of the following: (1) a notice voluntarily dismissing this
action, (2) a notice stating he wishes to proceed on the § 1983 complaint docketed
in this case, or (3) a notice withdrawing the § 1983 complaint and filing a petition
for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this case. (Id. at 2). The
Court also directed Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee for a civil rights action ($402)
or habeas action ($5), or file a fully complete application to proceed in forma
pauperis by November 30, 2023. (Id. at 3). In response to Plaintiff’s letter, the
Court extended Plaintiff’s deadline to January 31, 2024, to comply with the
Court’s earlier order. (See ECF Nos. 5-1, 6). That deadline expired and Plaintiff
did not file a notice, pay the filing fee, file an application to proceed in forma
pauperis, or otherwise respond.
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

1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

Cir. 1987)).

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.

21

The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

cannot realistically proceed until and unless Plaintiff specifies what type of case

7

he is trying to initiate and either pays the filing fee or submits an application to

8

proceed in forma pauperis, the only alternative is to enter a third order setting

9

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

10

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

11

circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is

12

no hint that Plaintiff needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the

13

Court’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given

14

these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal.

15

CONCLUSION

16

Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that

17

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

18

dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to indicate which type of

19

lawsuit he is trying to pursue and either pay the filing fee or file an application to

20

proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment

21

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

22

closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint or

23

petition in a new case.

24

DATED THIS 6th day of February 2024.

25
26
27
28

ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3