Williams v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 11

ORDER - It is ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Williams's failure to file a complaint and either pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, in compliance with this Court& #039;s December 11, 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. If Williams wishes to pursue hi s claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. It is further ordered that Williamss motions for various relief (ECF Nos. 1-1, 3, 6, 7) are denied as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/25/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

TERRANCE E. WILLIAMS,

Case No. 3:23-cv-00601-MMD-CSD
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER

v.
8
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
11
12

Plaintiff Terrance E. Williams initiated this action with a motion to file a preliminary

13

injunction. (ECF No. 1-1.) Williams did not pay the $402 filing fee, file an application to

14

proceed in forma pauperis, or file a complaint. (ECF No. 1.) On December 11, 2023, the

15

Court ordered Williams to file a complaint and either pay the $402 filing fee or file an

16

application to proceed in forma pauperis by February 9, 2024. (ECF No. 4.) Williams did

17

not comply with the Court’s order, and on February 13, 2024, the Court gave Williams an

18

extension until March 15, 2024, to file a complaint and either pay the $402 filing fee or file

19

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 9.) In each of the Court’s orders,

20

the Court warned Williams that the action could be dismissed if he failed to meet the

21

Court’s deadline. (ECF Nos. 4 at 2, 9 at 2.) The Court’s March 15, 2024, deadline has

22

expired, and Williams did not file a complaint, pay the $402 filing fee, file an application

23

to proceed in forma pauperis, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. The Court’s

24

final order came back as undeliverable to Williams’s address, and Williams has not filed

25

an updated address. (ECF No. 10.)

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 Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

1

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

Cir. 1987) (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 public’s

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

2

1

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

2

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

3

unless Williams files a complaint, and either pays the filing fee or files an application to

4

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

5

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

6

inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not

7

indicate that this case will be an exception: Williams failed to comply with the Court’s first

8

order, the Court’s second order came back as undeliverable, and Williams has not

9

provided an updated address. As such, it is unlikely that Williams would even receive a

10

third order setting another deadline. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful

11

alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal.

12
13

Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they
weigh in favor of dismissal.

14

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on

15

Williams’s failure to file a complaint and either pay the filing fee or file an application to

16

proceed in forma pauperis, in compliance with this Court’s December 11, 2023, and

17

February 13, 2024, orders.

18

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

19

No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Williams wishes to pursue

20

his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case.

21
22
23

It is further ordered that Williams’s motions for various relief (ECF Nos. 1-1, 3, 6,
7) are denied as moot.
DATED THIS 25th Day of March 2024.

24
25
26

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

3