2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MANUEL A. VELASCO, Case No. 3:19-cv-00194-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8

9 HAROLD WICKHAM, et. al.,

10 Defendants.

11

12 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

1983 by Plaintiff Manuel Velasco, who is incarcerated by the Nevada Department of 14 Corrections. On December 3, 2019, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file his 15 updated address with this Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 4.) The thirty-day period has 16 now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded to the 17 Court’s order. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise 19 of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a 20 case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

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

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

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

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

(9th 28 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 2 with local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 4 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 8 Thompson,

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

; 9 Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 10 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 11 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 12 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs 13 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 14 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See 15 Anderson v. Air West,

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

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court 21 within 30 days expressly stated, “[i]t is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply 22 with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 4 at 2.) Thus, 23 Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with 24 the Court’s order to file his updated address within 30 days. 25 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 26 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s December 3, 27 2019, order. 28 /// 1 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as 2 || moot. (ECF No. 1.) 3 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly and close 4 || this case. 5 DATED THIS 9" day of January 2020. 6 — 7 ASA 8 MIRANDAM.DU- ———<“‘“—C—C‘“‘“‘C;: 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