1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JOSEPH CLARENCE DYLAN Case No. 3:18-cv-00602-MMD-WGC SUSTACHA, 7 ORDER Plaintiff, 8 v.

9 ELKO COUNTY COURT HOUSE, et al.,

10 Defendants. 11 12 Plaintiff Joseph Clarence Dylan Sustacha alleges violations of his constitutional 13 rights under

against various defendants arising from his pretrial 14 detention at the Elko County Jail. On February 21, 2019, U.S. Magistrate Judge William 15 G. Cobb issued an order dismissing the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend and 16 directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days from the date of entry of that 17 order. (ECF No. 4 at 9-10.) Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise 18 responded to the Court’s order. As further explained below, the Court will therefore 19 dismiss this case. 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 21 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 22 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 23 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 24 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 25 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 26 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) 27 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 28 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 1 v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure 2 to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) 3 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 4 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 5 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 6 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 7 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 8 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 9 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 11 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 12 resolving this litigation, and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 13 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 14 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 15 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 16 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring the 17 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 18 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 19 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 20 requirement. See Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 21 F.2d at 1424. Judge Cobb’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 22 expressly stated: “If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the 30 days, the 23 action may be dismissed.” (ECF No. 4 at 10.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 24 dismissal would result from his noncompliance with Judge Cobb’s order to file an 25 amended complaint. 26 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 27 Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with Judge Cobb’s February 28 21, 2019, order. 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 2 DATED THIS 9th day of September 2019. 3

4 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28