2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 RICHARD IDEN, Case No. 3:20-cv-00127-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 A. ALZATE, et al.,

10 Defendants. 11 12 On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department 13 of Corrections (“NDOC”), filed a notice of complaint. (ECF No. 1-1.) On February 26, 2020, 14 this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a complaint and a fully complete 15 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400 within 45 days 16 from the date of that order. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) The 45-day period has now expired, and 17 Plaintiff has not filed a complaint, an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full 18 filing $400 fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. The Court will therefore 19 dismiss this case. 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise 21 of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a 22 case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 23 A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 24 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. 25 Moran,

, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local 26 rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for 27 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 2

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court 3 order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for 4 lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 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. See 10 Thompson,

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

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

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

, 16 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 17 merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, 18 a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal 19 satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone, 20 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to 21 file a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $400 filing 22 fee within 45 days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not 23 timely comply with this order, dismissal of this action may result.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Thus, 24 Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with 25 the Court’s order to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $400 26 filing fee within 45 days. 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 2 || Plaintiff's failure to file a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 3 || the full $400 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s February 26, 2020 order. 4 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment accordingly and close 5 || this case. 6 DATED THIS 21* day of April 2020. ASQ. 3 / — MIRANDA M. DU 9 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28