Guzman v. Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Guzman v. Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 * * *
8 SIXTO GUZMAN, Case No. 3:19-cv-00426-MMD-WGC
9 Plaintiff, ORDER
10 v.
11 WASHOE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 161983 by a person in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections. On August 17 21, 2019, this Court issued an order denying the application to proceed in forma pauperis 18 because the application was incomplete (“Order”). (ECF No. 8 at 1-2). The Order directed 19 Plaintiff to file a complete application, including a properly executed financial certificate 20 and an inmate account statement, or pay the full filing fee of $400.00 within 30 days from 21 the date of the Order. (Id. at 2). The 30-day period now has expired, and Plaintiff has not 22 filed another application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full filing fee, or otherwise 23 responded to the Order. 24 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 25 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 26 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,
782 F.2d 829, 831 27 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 28 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 1 See Ghazali v. Moran,
46 F.3d 52, 53-54(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 2 noncompliance with a local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61(9th Cir. 3 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 4 complaint); Carey v. King,
856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for 5 failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 6 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,
833 F.2d 128, 130(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 7 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,
779 F.2d 1421, 8 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 9 local rules). 10 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 11 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 12 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 13 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 14 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 15 See Ghazali,
46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik,
963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone,
833 F.2d at 130; 16 Thompson,
782 F.2d at 831; Henderson,
779 F.2d at 1423-24. 17 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 18 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 19 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 20 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 21 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 22 West,
542 F.2d 522, 524(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the 23 factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his 24 failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 25 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,
963 F.2d at 1262; Malone,
833 F.2d at 132-33; 26 Henderson,
779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s Order expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER 27 ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, dismissal of this action 28 may result.” (ECF No. 8 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that noncompliance with the Order would result in dismissal. 2 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 3 Plaintiff's failure to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full 4 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s Order (ECF No. 8.). 5 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 6 7 DATED THIS 30" day of September 2019. 8 A Cl 9 MIRANDA M. DU 40 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown