1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Brick P. Houston, Case No.: 2:18-cv-01115-JAD-EJY Plaintiff, 4 v. Order Dismissing Action 5 6 State of Nevada, et al., Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Brick P. Houston brings this civil-rights case under § 1983 for events he alleges 9 occurred during his incarceration at High Desert State Prison.1 On August 23, 2019, after court 10 mail sent to Houston was returned,2 the magistrate judge ordered Houston to update his address 11 with the court within 30 days.3 The magistrate judge expressly warned Houstonthat his failure 12 to timely comply with theorder would result in the dismissal of this case.4 The deadline has 13 passed, mail to Houston continues to be returned, and Houston has not filed an updated address. 14 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 15 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.5 A 16 court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 17 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.6 In determining whether to 18 19 1 ECF No. 1-1 (complaint). 2 ECF No. 6. 20 3 ECF No. 7(order). 21 4 Id. 5 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 22 6 See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with 23 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 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 1 dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey acourt 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) thepublic policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 5 availability of less drastic alternatives.7

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.8 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.9 Houstonwas warned that his 13 case would be dismissed without prejudiceif he failed to update his address within 30 days.10 14 So, Houston had adequate warning that his failure to update his address would result in this

15 case’s dismissal. 16 17 18 19 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 20 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). 21 7 Thompson,

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

; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61; Ghazali, 46F.3d at 53. 22 8 See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). 23 9 Ferdik,

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

. 10 ECF No. 7(order). 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without 2|| prejudice based on Houston’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this court’s August 23, 2019, order; and 4 The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. 6 Dated: September 30, 2019 sem SEES ma U.S. District Judge Jenni fr } . Dorsey 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23