Green v. Williams et al

Filing 7

ORDER - It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to address the matter of the filing fee in compliance with the Court's February 3, 2025, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/11/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

BRANDON GREEN,

7
8
9

Case No. 3:24-cv-00413-MMD-CSD
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11
12

Plaintiff Brandon Green brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to

13

redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while incarcerated at Lovelock

14

Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1). On February 3, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff

15

to either pay the full $405.00 filing fee or file a complete application to proceed in forma

16

pauperis for a non-prisoner by March 5, 2025. (ECF No. 6). That deadline expired without

17

any response by Plaintiff.

18

I.

19

DISCUSSION
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 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) (finding dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In

27

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 need

1

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 Plaintiff’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) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed without

24

the ability for the Court and the defendants to send Plaintiff case-related documents,

25

filings, and orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline.

26

But without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach

27

Plaintiff is low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and further

28
2

1

squander the Court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful

2

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

3

II.

CONCLUSION

4

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

5

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

6

prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to address the matter of the filing fee in compliance

7

with the Court’s February 3, 2025, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment

8

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

9

case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and

10

provide the Court with his current address.

11

DATED THIS 11th Day of March 2025.

12
13
14

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

___