Kurtze v. State of Nevada
Kurtze v. State of Nevada
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * *
9 GIOVANNI KURTZE, Case No. 2:18-cv-01642-RFB-NJK
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14 15 This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983by 16 a state prisoner. On June 27, 2019, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint 17 with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 18 (ECF No. 10 at 7-8). The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an 19 amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. District courts have the 20 inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may 21 impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. 22 Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,
782 F.2d 829, 831(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 23 dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure 24 to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran,
46 F.3d 2552, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 26
963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61(9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 27 requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,
856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41(9th Cir. 28 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court 1 apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,
833 F.2d 128, 130(9th Cir. 1987) 2 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,
779 F.2d 1421, 3 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 4 rules). 5 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 6 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 7 (1) the 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 favoring 9 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 10 Thompson,
782 F.2d at 831; Henderson,
779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone,
833 F.2d at 130; 11 Ferdik,
963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 12 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 13 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 14 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs 15 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 16 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See 17 Anderson v. Air West,
542 F.2d 522, 524(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy 18 favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor 19 of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 20 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 21 requirement. Ferdik,
963 F.2d at 1262; Malone,
833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 22 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 23 thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file a 24 second amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will 25 be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 10 at 8). Thus, Plaintiff 26 had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the 27 Court’s order to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 28 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on 1 | Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this June 27, 2019 order and for failure to state a claim. 3 It is further ordered that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is denied as moot. 5 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and 6 | close this case. 7 DATED THIS 9" day of August 2019. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-3-
Reference
- Status
- Unknown