1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 HEATH VINCENT FULKERSON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00721-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 On January 6, 2020, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 12 within 30 days. (ECF No. 6.) That deadline has has now expired, and Plaintiff has not 13 filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 14 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 15 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 16 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 17 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 18 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 19 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 20 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 21 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 22 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 23 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 24 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 25 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 26 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply 27 with local rules). 28 /// 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 3 factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need 4 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 5 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 6 alternatives. See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone, 7

; 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 defendant, also weighs in favor of 11 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable 12 delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. 13 Air West,

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

; Malone,

; Henderson, 18

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 19 within 30 days expressly stated: “The Court advises Plaintiff that it will dismiss this case 20 in its entirety if he fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of entry of 21 this order.” (ECF No. 6 at 4.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would 22 result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint. 23 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on 24 Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s prior order. 25 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 26 DATED THIS 10th day of February 2020.

27 MIRANDA M. DU 28 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE