2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 DARREN A. LUNFORD, Case No. 3:19-cv-00236-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8

9 R. BAKER et al., Defendants. 10

11

12 Pro se Plaintiff Darren A. Lunford, a state prisoner, filed this civil rights complaint 13 under

. (ECF No. 1-1.) On March 13, 2020, this Court issued an order 14 directing Plaintiff to file his updated address with this Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 4.) 15 The 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or 16 otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise 18 of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a 19 case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 20 A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 21 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. 22 Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local 23 rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for 24 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 26 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 27 Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with 28 court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (affirming 2 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 3 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 4 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 5 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 6 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 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 Defendants, also weighs in favor of 11 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 12 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 13 West,

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

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court 19 within 30 days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely 20 comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 4 at 21 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 22 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address within 30 days. 23 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 24 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s March 13, 2020, 25 order. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment 2 || accordingly. 3 DATED THIS 20* day of April 2020.

5 Lo - MIRANDA M. DU 6 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28