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

6 MARK CRAMM, Case No. 3:19-cv-00359-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 AITOR NARVAIZA, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

by 13 a former state prisoner. On January 14, 2020, this Court issued an order denying the 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot because Plaintiff was no 15 longer incarcerated. (ECF No. 6.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully complete 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee of 17 $400.00 within 30 days from the date of that order. (Id.) The 30-day period has now 18 expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non- 19 prisoners, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. The Court 20 will therefore dismiss this action. 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 22 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 23 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 24 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 25 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 26 See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 27 with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 28 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring 2 pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. 4 Duncan,

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

; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; Malone,

; 12 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61; Ghazali,

. 13 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors weigh in favor of 14 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 15 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 16 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 17 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring 18 disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 19 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 20 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 21 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson, 779 22 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma 23 pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee within 30 days expressly stated that, if 24 Plaintiff failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay 25 the full filing fee of $400 within 30 days, dismissal of this action may result. (ECF No. 6 at 26 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 27 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis 28 for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee within 30 days. 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 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 Court’s January 14, 2020 order. 4 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 6 DATED THIS 24" day of February 2020.

9 MIRANDA 40 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-