1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:19-cv-01370-JAD-DJA 4 Brandon Kellermeier, 5 Plaintiff OrderDismissing Action 6 v. 7 State of Nevada, 8 Defendant 9 10 Plaintiff Brandon Kellermeiersubmitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis in 11 this case but did not submit a complaint.1 On August 12, 2019,the magistrate judgedenied his 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice because the application was 13 incomplete and gave him 30 daysto file a fully completed application or pay the $400 filing fee.2 14 The magistrate judge also gave him 30 days to file a complaint.3 The court expressly warned 15 him that his failure to submit a complaint and file the completed application or pay the filing fee 16 by that deadline would result in the dismissal of this case.4 The deadline has passed, and 17 Kellermeierhas not filed anything in response to the order. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 19 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.5 A 20 court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 21 22 23 1 ECF No. 1(application to proceed in forma pauperis). 24 2 ECF No. 2(order). 25 3 Id. 26 4 Id. 27 5 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 28 1 1 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.6 In determining whether to 2 dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 3 local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 4 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 5 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 6 availability of less drastic alternatives.7 7 I find that the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving the 8 litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissing this case. 9 The risk-of-prejudice factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 10 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 11 prosecuting an action.8 The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favorof 12 dismissal, and a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in 13 dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement.9 Kellermeier was warned that 14 his case would be dismissed if he failed tosubmit a complaint and file a fully completed 15 application or pay the $400 filing fee.10 So, Kellermeierhad adequate warning that his failure to 16 submit a complaint and pay the fee or submit a completed application would result in this case’s 17 dismissal. 18 19 6 See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 20 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

, 1440– 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 21 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 22 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 23 7 Thompson,

; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; Malone,

; 24 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61; Ghazali,

. 25 8 See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). 26 9 Ferdik,

; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson,

. 27 10ECF No. 2(order). 28 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without 2 || prejudice based on Kellermeier’s failure to submit a complaint and file a fully completed 3 || application or pay the $400 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s August 12, 2019, order; 4 || and 5 The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS 6 || CASE. 7 Dated: September 23, 2019 2 9 U.S. District Yudge Jennifer) . Dorsey 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28