Brooks v. Nevada Department of Correction Accounting Department Supervisor

District Court, D. Nevada

Brooks v. Nevada Department of Correction Accounting Department Supervisor

Trial Court Opinion

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ANTHONY BROOKS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00183-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ACCOUNTING 10 DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR,

11 Defendant.

12

13 On April 29, 2020, this Court ordered Plaintiff Anthony Brooks to file a fully complete 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400 no later than May 15 28, 2020. (ECF No. 6 at 2.) The May 28, 2020, deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has 16 not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise 17 responded to the Court’s order. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise 19 of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a 20 case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

782 F.2d 829, 831

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

46 F.3d 52, 53-54

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

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for 25 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

26 F.2d 1439

, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 27 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 28 Service,

833 F.2d 128, 130

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with 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,

782 F.2d at 831

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

833 F.2d at 130

; 9 Ferdik,

963 F.2d at 1260-61

; Ghazali,

46 F.3d at 53

. 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,

542 F.2d 522, 524

(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,

963 F.2d at 1262

; Malone,

833 F.2d at 132-33

; Henderson,

779 F.2d 20 at 1424

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma 21 pauperis or pay the full filing fee no later than May 28, 2020, expressly stated: “IT IS 22 FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, dismissal of 23 this action may result.” (ECF No. 6 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 24 dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an application 25 to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee no later than May 28, 2020. 26 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 27 Plaintiff’s failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee 28 in compliance with this Court's order dated April 29, 2020. 1 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment in accordance with this 2 || order and close this case. 3 DATED THIS 8" day of June 2020. 4 A GQ 5 ~ 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

Reference

Status
Unknown