1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 TONY MORRIS BRANDON, Case No. 2:19-cv-01337-JCM-EJY

4 Plaintiff ORDER

5 v.

6 H.D.S.P. and S.D.C.C. MEDICAL UNIT, 7 Defendants

8 9 10 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

11 by a state prisoner. On August 22, 2019, this court issued an order denying the 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis, without prejudice, because the application was 13 incomplete. (ECF No. 5 at 1). The court ordered plaintiff to file a fully complete application 14 to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400.00 within thirty days from 15 the date of that order. (Id. at 2). The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has 16 not filed another application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full filing fee, or 17 otherwise responded to the court’s order. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 19 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 20 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 21 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 22 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 23 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 24 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 25 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 26 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 27 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 28 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 1 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 2 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 3 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—public policy favoring 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. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 21 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order requiring plaintiff to file another application to proceed in 22 forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS 23 FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, dismissal of 24 this action may result.” (ECF No. 5 at 2). Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that 25 dismissal might result from his noncompliance with the court’s order to file another 26 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee within thirty days. 27 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 28 plaintiff’s failure to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full 1 | filing fee in compliance with this court’s August 22, 2019 order. 2 It is further ordered that the clerk of court will close the case and enter judgment accordingly. 4 DATED October 7, 2019. □□□ ©. Aallan 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT □□□□□ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-