1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 JARRETT MILLER, Case No. 2:18-cv-00940-RFB-NJK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 v.

10 JAMES DZURENDA et al.,

11 Defendants.

12 13 14 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

1983 by a former state prisoner. On May 29, 2019, this Court issued an order denying 16 the application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot because Plaintiff was 17 no longer incarcerated. (ECF No. 4 at 1). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully 18 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing 19 fee of $400.00 within thirty (30) days from the date of that order. (Id. at 5). The thirty-day 20 period expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis for 21 non-prisoners, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise 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. 1 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 2 complaint); Carey v. King,

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

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

, 6 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 7 local rules). 8 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 9 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 10 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 11 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 12 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 13 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 15 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 16 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 17 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 18 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 19 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 20 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 21 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 22 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 23 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 24 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 25 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma 26 pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days expressly stated: 27 “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely file an application to proceed 28 in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee, the Court will dismiss this 1| case with prejudice.” (ECF No. 4 at 5). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 2 dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an application 3 | to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days. 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice based 6 | on Plaintiff's failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners 7 | or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court’s May 29, 2019, order. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 9} accordingly. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court vacate the Inmate Early Mediation Program scheduled for February 7, 2020 (ECF No. 19). 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the [20] Order to Produce is vacated. 13 14 DATED this _7th day of February 2020. 15 AS 16 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 47 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-