2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 TRAVOY COX, Case No. 3:19-cv-00333-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8

9 WEUPPER et al., Defendants. 10 11 12 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

13 by a former county inmate, Plaintiff Travoy Cox. On December 3, 2019, this Court issued 14 an order directing Plaintiff to file his updated address with this Court within 30 days. (ECF 15 No. 5.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated 16 address or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise 18 of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a 19 case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 20 A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 21 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. 22 Moran,

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

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for 24 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 26 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 27 Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with 28 court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

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

; Henderson,

; Malone,

; 8 Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 9 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 10 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 11 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 12 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 13 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 14 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 15 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 16 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the 17 court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 18 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court 20 within 30 days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely 21 comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 5.) 22 Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance 23 with the Court’s order to file his updated address within 30 days. 24 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 25 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s December 3, 26 2019, order. 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) 2 || and the motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 3) are denied as moot. 3 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment 4 || accordingly. 5 DATED THIS 7" day of January 2020.

7 ASR 8 MIRANDAM.DU- □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 9 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28