2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ANTHONY CLARKE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00235-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 On April 15, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff Anthony Clarke to 13 file his own amended complaint and a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis 14 or pay the full filing fee of $400 within 30 days from the date of that order. (ECF No. 1 at 15 14). The 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff Anthony Clarke has not filed an 16 amended complaint. 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 /// 2 dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 4 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See 8 Thompson,

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

; 9 Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

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

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

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. 21 The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff Anthony Clarke to file his own amended 22 complaint within 30 days expressly stated: “If any of these plaintiffs fails to file a signed 23 amended complaint within 30 days of this order, that plaintiff’s case will be dismissed 24 without prejudice to that plaintiff later filing a new action with a new complaint.” (ECF No. 25 1 at 14). Thus, Plaintiff Anthony Clarke had adequate warning that dismissal would result 26 from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint within 30 27 days. 28 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 2 || Plaintiff Anthony Clarke's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this 3 || Court’s order (ECF No. 1) dated April 15, 2020. 4 It is further ordered that Plaintiff Anthony Clarke's application to proceed in forma 5 || pauperis (ECF No. 5) is denied as moot. 6 It is further ordered that Plaintiff Anthony Clarke's motion for default judgment (ECF 7 || No. 6) is denied as moot. 8 Itis further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly. No additional 9 || documents will be filed in this closed case. 10 DATED THIS 2" day of June 2020. 11 12 f ( ( □

13 MARA DA M. DU 14 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28