Fuller v. United States

District Court, D. Nevada

Fuller v. United States

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 MORGAN FULLER, Case No. 2:19-cv-00671-RFB-BNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 Defendant. 12 13 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 14

1983 by a state prisoner. On March 24, 2020, the Court issued an order dismissing the 15 complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 16 thirty days. (ECF No. 10 at 6). The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has 17 not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 19 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 20 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

782 F.2d 829

, 831 21 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 22 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 23 See Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53-54

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 24 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61

(9th Cir. 25 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 26 complaint); Carey v. King,

856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 27 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 28 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

833 F.2d 128, 130

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 1 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

779 F.2d 1421

, 2 1424-25 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply 3 with local rules). 4 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 5 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 6 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 7 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 8 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 9 See Thompson,

782 F.2d at 831

; Henderson,

779 F.2d at 1423-24

; Malone,

833 F.2d at 10

130; Ferdik,

963 F.2d at 1260-61

; Ghazali,

46 F.3d at 53

. 11 The Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 12 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 13 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 14 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 15 in filing a pleading ordered by the Court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 16 West,

542 F.2d 522, 524

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 17 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 18 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 19 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 20 requirement. Ferdik,

963 F.2d at 1262

; Malone,

833 F.2d at 132-33

; Henderson, 779 21 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 22 thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to file an 23 amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be 24 dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 10 at 6). Thus, Plaintiff 25 had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the 26 Court’s order to file an amended complaint cured of deficiencies within thirty days. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice based 2 on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s March 24, 2020, order and for failure to state a claim. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter 5 | Judgment accordingly. 6 DATED this 4th day of May, 2020.

8 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-

Reference

Status
Unknown