1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 JONATHAN WATKINS, Case No. 3:18-cv-00591-MMD-WGC 6 Plaintiff ORDER 7 v.

8 VENUS B. FAJATA, et al., Defendants 9 10 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

11 by a former state prisoner. On November 5, 2019, this Court issued an order directing 12 Plaintiff to file his updated address with this Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 4 at 1.) The 13 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or 14 otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 16 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 17 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 18 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 19 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 20 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 21 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) 22 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 23 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 24 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); 25 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for 26 failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 27 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 1 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 2 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 3 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 5 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 6 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

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

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 14 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 15 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 16 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 17 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court 19 within 30 days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely 20 comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 4 at 21 1.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 22 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address within 30 days. 23 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 24 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s November 5, 25 2019, order. 26 /// 27 1 It is further ordered that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is 2 denied as moot. 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 4 DATED THIS 14th day of January 2020. 5 6 7 MIRANDA M. DU 8 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27