Houston Jr v. Dzurenda

District Court, D. Nevada

Houston Jr v. Dzurenda

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 BRICK S HOUSTON, JR, Case No. 2:18-cv-02298-APG-BNW

Plaintiff, ORDER 4

v. 5 JAMES DZURENDA, et. al, 6 Defendants.

7

8 This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

by a former 9 state prisoner. On September 20, 2019, Magistrate Judge Weksler issued an order denying the 10 application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot because plaintiff Brick Houston was no longer 11 incarcerated. ECF No. 15 at 1. Judge Weksler ordered Houston to file a fully complete 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee of $400.00 13 within 30 days from the date of that order.

Id. at 2

. The 30-day period has expired, and Houston 14 has not filed an application, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the order. 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 16 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 17 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

782 F.2d 829, 831

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 18 dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey 19 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53-54

(9th 20 Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258

, 21 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 22 complaint); Carey v. King,

856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41

(9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 23 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 1 U.S. Postal Service,

833 F.2d 128, 130

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 2 order); Henderson v. Duncan,

779 F.2d 1421, 1424

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 3 prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 4 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a 5 court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the

6 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 7 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 8 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson,

782 F.2d at 831

; 9 Henderson,

779 F.2d at 1423-24

; Malone,

833 F.2d at 130

; Ferdik,

963 F.2d at 1260-61

; 10 Ghazali,

46 F.3d at 53

. 11 Here, the first two factors (the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 12 and the court’s interest in managing the docket) weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor 13 (risk of prejudice to Defendants) also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 14 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court

15 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

542 F.2d 522, 524

(9th Cir. 1976). The 16 fourth factor (public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits) is greatly outweighed 17 by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his 18 failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 19 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

963 F.2d at 1262

; Malone,

833 F.2d at 132-33

; Henderson, 20

779 F.2d at 1424

. Judge Weksler’s order requiring Houston to file an application to proceed in 21 forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee within 30 days expressly stated: “It is 22 further ordered that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, dismissal of this action 23 may result.” ECF No. 15 at 2. Thus, Houston had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the order. 3 I therefore order that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on the plaintiff’ s failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing 5|| fee in compliance with Magistrate Judge Weksler’s September 20, 2019 order. 6 I further order the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. 7 Dated: November 19, 2019. : ANDREW P. GORDON 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Reference

Status
Unknown