1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:19-cv-01320-JAD-BNW 4 Orvid Garrett, 5 Plaintiff OrderDismissing Action 6 v. 7 Warden of Southern Desert Correctional Center, 8 Defendant 9 10 Plaintiff Orvid Garrett brings this civil-rights case under § 1983 for events he alleges 11 occurred during his incarceration at Southern Desert Correctional Center (“SDCC”).1 On 12 August 6, 2019,the Court directed Garrett to file a fully completed application to proceed in 13 forma pauperis or pay the $400 filing fee.2 The Court expressly warned him that his failure to 14 file the completed application or pay the filing fee within 30 days from the date of that order 15 would result in the dismissal of this case.3 The deadline has passed, and Garrett has not 16 responded to the Court’s order. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 18 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.4 A 19 court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 20 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.5 In determining whether to 21 22 1 ECF No. 1-1(complaint). 23 2 ECF No. 3(order). 24 3 Id. 25 4 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 26 27 5 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 28 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

, 1440– 1 1 dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 2 local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 3 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 4 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 5 availability of less drastic alternatives.6 6 I find that the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving the 7 litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissing this case. 8 The risk-of-prejudice factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 9 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 10 prosecuting an action.7 The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 11 dismissal, and a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in 12 dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement.8 Garrett was warned that his 13 case would be dismissed if he failed to pay the fee or submit a completed application within 30 14 days.9 So, Garrett had adequate warning that his failure to pay the fee or submit a completed 15 application would result in this case’s dismissal. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSEDwithout 17 prejudicebased on Garrett’s failure to pay the fee or submit a completed application in 18 compliance with this Court’s August 6, 2019, order; and 19 20 21 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 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 24 6 Thompson,

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

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

. 25 7 See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). 26 27 8 Ferdik,

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

. 28 9ECF No. 3(order). 2 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS 2 || CASE. 3 Dated: September 23, 2019 4 on ORES Dorsey 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28