1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No. 2:19-cv-01389-JAD-VCF 4 Moorish National Republic Federal Government; and Antonio El, Consulate 5 General, Order Adopting Report and 6 Recommendation and Dismissing Case Plaintiff 7 v. [ECF No.5] 8 U.S. Department of State, et al., 9 Defendants 10 11 12 On October 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judgeissued a report and recommendation that the 13 district court dismiss this case because the plaintiffs havefailed to comply with the Court’s 14 orders to file a new application to proceed in forma pauperis and to update theirmailing address 15 with the court.1 The deadline for objections to that report and recommendation passed without 16 any filing from the plaintiffs, and “noreview is required of a magistrate judge’s report and 17 recommendation unless objections are filed.”2 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.3 A 20 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a 21 court order, or failure to comply with local rules.4 In determining whether to dismiss an action 22 23 1 ECF No. 5. 24 2 Schmidt v. Johnstone,

(D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 25 3 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 26 27 4 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 on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 2 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 3 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 4 availability of less drastic alternatives.5 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 6 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. The 7 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 8 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 9 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.6 A court’s warning to a party that its failure to 10 obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of 11 alternatives” requirement,7 and that warning was given here.8 The fourth factor—the public 12 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors 13 favoring dismissal.

14 15 16 17 18 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 5 Thompson,

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

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

. 25 6 See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). 26 27 7 Ferdik,

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

. 28 8 ECF Nos. 2, 5. 2 1 Accordingly, with good cause appearing and no reason to delay, IT IS HEREBY 2 || ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 5] is ADOPTED, and this case is 3 || DISMISSED for failure to file a notice of changed address and new IFP application as directed 4||by the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and 5 || CLOSE THIS CASE. ces 7 U.S. District Jidge’Jennife Dorsey Dated: October 29, 2019 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28