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

4 STANLEY JOHNSON, Case No. 2:20-cv-00356-KJD-DJA

5 Plaintiff, ORDER

6 v.

7 JERRY HOWELL, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

1983 by a former state prisoner. On February 21, 2020, this Court issued an order 12 denying the application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot because 13 Plaintiff was no longer incarcerated. (ECF No. 3 at 1.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file 14 a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full 15 filing fee of $400 within thirty (30) days from the date of that order. (Id.) The thirty-day 16 period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis for non-prisoners, paid the full $400 filing fee, or otherwise responded to the 18 Court’s order. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 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 25 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 26 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 27 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 28 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 1 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 2 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

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

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 12 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 13 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 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,

; 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 thirty (30) days expressly stated: 24 “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, 25 dismissal of this action may result.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 26 warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file 27 an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full $400 filing 28 fee within thirty (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- 3| prisoners or pay the full $400 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated 4| February 21, 2020. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 6 | accordingly. 7 DATED: March 31, 2020 Leal 9 KENTJ.DAWSON □□□ 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-