1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * *

6 ANTHONY BRADLEY, Case No. 3:19-cv-00605-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 This action began with a pro se civil rights Complaint filed pursuant to

1983 by a state prisoner. On October 23, 2019, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff 15 to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, including an inmate 16 account statement for the past six months and a properly executed financial certificate, 17 or pay the full filing fee of $400.00 within 30 days from the date of that order. (ECF No. 5 18 at 2). The 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application to 19 proceed in forma pauperis, including an inmate account statement for the past six months 20 and a properly executed financial certificate, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise 21 responded to the court’s order. 22 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 23 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 24 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 25 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 26 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 27 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 28 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) 1 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 2 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 3 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 4 v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure 5 to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) 6 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 7 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 8 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 9 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 10 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 11 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 12 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 14 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 15 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 16 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 17 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 18 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 19 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 20 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 21 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 22 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 23 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

at 1424. The court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma 25 pauperis, including an inmate account statement for the past six months and a properly 26 executed financial certificate, or pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days expressly 27 stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, 28 dismissal of this action may result.” (ECF No. 5 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning 1 | that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the court’s order to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee within 30 days. 3 Therefore, it is ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 4| Plaintiff's failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, including an inmate 5 | account statement for the past six months and a properly executed financial certificate, 6 | or pay the full filing fee in compliance with the court’s October 23, 2019, order. 7 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 8 9 DATED THIS 6" day of December 2019. Lyd 11 IRANDA M. DU —

42 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28