Vanness v. 15CF67AD

Filing 6

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 3/10/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

CRAIG ALAN VANNESS,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7

Case No. 3:25-CV-00075-CLB 1

v.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

15CF67AD,

8

Defendant.

9
10

On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint with the Court. (ECF No.

11

3-1.) However, Plaintiff did not submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

12

Thus, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either submit an IFP application or pay the full filing

13

fee by Friday, March 7, 2025. (ECF No. 5.) The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure

14

to timely comply with the order would subject his case to dismissal without prejudice. (Id.)

15

To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order.

16

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

17

exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .

18

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

19

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

20

to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.

21

See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance

22

with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for

23

failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

24

F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (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) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

27
28

This action was assigned to the undersigned pursuant to First Amended General
Order 2023-11, which is adopted under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 1.)

1

1

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey

2

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors:

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;

7

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

8

In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in

9

expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,

10

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

11

in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of

12

unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See

13

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy

14

favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor

15

of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a Court’s warning to a party that her failure to obey

16

the Court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”

17

requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d

18

at 1424. In the order directing Plaintiff to submit an IFP application or pay the full filing

19

fee, the order expressly stated that if Plaintiff failed to timely comply, the case would be

20

subject to dismissal without prejudice. (ECF No. 5.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning

21

that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice;

22
23
24
25
26

and,
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court ENTER JUDGMENT
accordingly.
DATED: March 10, 2025

27
28

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2