Dumas v. Garrett et al

Filing 6

ORDER granting ECF No. 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. It is ordered that the Nevada Department of Corrections must pay to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits to the account of Sabrina S. Dumas, #56427 (in months that the account exceeds $10) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to (1) the Fi nance Division of the Clerk's Office and (2) the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections at [e-mail]. (Emailed on 9/25/2024) It is further ordered that this action is dismi ssed without prejudice based on Dumas's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's August 5, 2024 order and for failure to state a claim. 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. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/25/2024. (For Distribution by law library.)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6
7
8
9

SABRINA DUMAS,

Case No. 3:23-cv-00589-MMD-CSD
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

T. GARRETT, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11
12

Plaintiff Sabrina Dumas brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to

13

redress constitutional violations that she claims to have suffered while incarcerated at

14

Lovelock Correctional Center. (ECF No. 5.) On August 5, 2024, this Court ordered Dumas

15

to file an amended complaint by September 4, 2024. (ECF No. 4.) The Court warned

16

Dumas that the action could be dismissed if she failed to do so by that deadline. (Id. at

17

10.) That deadline expired and Dumas did not file an amended complaint, move for an

18

extension, or otherwise respond.

19

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

20

exercise

of

that

power,

they

may

impose

sanctions

including,

where

21

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

22

782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s

23

failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

24

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with a local rule requiring

25

pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833

26

F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

27

In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must

28

consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s

1

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

2

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

3

alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th

4

Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130).

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally

18

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

19

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically

20

proceed until and unless Dumas files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to

21

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

22

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

23

Because the circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception, setting

24

another deadline is not a meaningful alternative. So the fifth factor favors dismissal.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Court’s August 5, 2024 order and for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is directed
2

1

to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in

2

this now-closed case. If Dumas wishes to pursue her claims, she must file a complaint in

3

a new case.

4

It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1)

5

is granted. This status does not relieve the plaintiff of her obligation to pay the full $350

6

filing fee under the statute—it just means that she may do so in installments. The full $350

7

filing fee remains due and owing even though this case is being dismissed.

8

It is further ordered that the Nevada Department of Corrections must pay to the

9

Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month’s

10

deposits to the account of Sabrina S. Dumas, #56427 (in months that the account

11

exceeds $10) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for. The Clerk is directed to send

12

a copy of this order to (1) the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office and (2) the attention

13

of Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections at

14

[e-mail].

15

DATED THIS 25th Day of September 2024.

16
17
18

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3