1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Felises Burton, Case No. 2:19-cv-00982-JAD-BNW 5 Plaintiff v. 6 Order Dismissing Dr. Shawn Mapleton, et. al., and Closing Case 7 Defendants 8 9 Plaintiff Felises Burton brings this civil-rights lawsuit to redress constitutional violations 10 that he claims he suffered while detained at the Las Vegas Detention Center. On December 17, 11 2019, this Court ordered Burton to updatehis address within 30 days.1 That 30-day period 12 expired without an updated address from Burton, and his mail from this Court is now being 13 returned as undeliverable.2 14 District courts have theinherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 15 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.3 A 16 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure toobey a 17 court order, or failure to comply with local rules.4 In determining whether to dismiss an action 18 1 ECF No. 6. 19 2 ECF No. 7. 20 3 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 4 See Ghazali v. Moran,

,53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with 21 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

, 1440– 22 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 23 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 3|| defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the Al\ availability of less drastic alternatives.° 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 6|| court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. The 7}| third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 8|| presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 9|| ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.® A court’s warning to a party that its failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of alternatives” requirement,’ and that warning was given here.® The fourth factor—the public 12}| policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED without prejudice 15]| based on the plaintiffs failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s 16|| December 17, 2019 order. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a 17||new case. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and close this 18}| case. 19 Dated: February 17, 2020 U.S. District e Jen fife A. Dorsey 20 2115 Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 22 © See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. 8 ECF Nos. 11, 13.