1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 wes 4| STEVEN SZOSTEK, Case No. 3:18-cv-00459-RCJ-WGC Plaintiff, ORDER 6 Vv. 7| ROMEO ARANAS etal., 8 Defendants. 10 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

1983 by a former state prisoner. On December 20, 2019, this Court issued an order denying the application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot because 13 | Plaintiff was no longer incarcerated. (ECF No. 4 at 1). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file 14| a fully complete application to proceed jn forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full 15| filing fee of $400.00 within thirty (30) days from the date of that order. (/d.) The thirty- | day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma | pauperis for non-prisoners, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the □□□□□□□ 18| order. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[iJn the | exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal’ of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 22| (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party's failure 23 | to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 24| See Ghazali v. Moran,

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

(9th Cir. 26| 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of | complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal | for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of

1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on 2| Plaintiff's failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or 3| pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Courts December 20, 2019, order. 4 It is further ordered that the Inmate Early Mediation Conference scheduled for 5 | March 3, 2020 (ECF No. 7) is vacated. 6 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall close the case and enter judgment | accordingly. g DATED THIS 27th day of January 2020. ~ 10 Cha., □□ 11 UNFTED STATEMPISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-