1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 TYRICE HALL, Case No. 2:19-cv-01022-RFB-EJY 4 Plaintiff ORDER 5 v.

6 JOSEPH LOMBARDO et al., Defendants 7 8 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

1983 by a former state prisoner. On February 6, 2020, this Court issued an order directing 10 Plaintiff to file his updated address with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 11 at 2). The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address 11 or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 12 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 13 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 14 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 15 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 16 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 17 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 18 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 19 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 20 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 21 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 22 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 23 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 24 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 25 local rules). 26 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 27 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: ' manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 2 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 3 Thompson,

(citing cases). 4 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 61] dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 10|| disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 43|} requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 44|| F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the 15 Court within thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails 46|| timely update his address, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF 17 No. 11 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 48 noncompliance with the Court's order to file his updated address within thirty days. 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 50 based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this □□□□□□□ February 6, 2020, order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. 23 24 DATED THIS 1* day of June 2020. 25 AS 26 UNITED STATESDISTRICT JUDGE 27 28