1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 RICHARD MARKS, Case No. 2:19-cv-01364-RFB-NJK

5 Plaintiff, ORDER

6 v.

7 JERRY HOWELL, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

1983 by a state prisoner. On August 12, 2019, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff 12 to file a fully complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on this Court’s approved 13 form and attach an inmate account statement for the past six months and a properly 14 executed financial certificate or pay the full filing fee of $400 no later than September 11, 15 2019. (ECF No. 3 at 2). Thereafter, on September 6, 2019, October 7, 2019, and 16 November 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed three Motions for Extensions of Time because he had 17 not received his financial attachments from the Nevada Department of Corrections 18 (“NDOC”). (ECF Nos. 4, 6, and 8). The Court granted these motions. (ECF Nos. 5, 7, 19 9). Further, in its most recent order of December 5, 2019, this Court afforded Plaintiff an 20 opportunity to submit an affidavit detailing the efforts he took to acquire a financial 21 certificate and an inmate account statement from prison officials, along with the first three 22 pages of the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on this Court’s approved form, no 23 later than January 6, 2020. (ECF No. 9 at 2-3) 24 On January 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a copy of his civil rights 25 complaint (ECF No. 10), however, Plaintiff did not respond to any of the Court’s orders 26 set forth in the Court’s December 5, 2019, order. As such, the January 6, 2020 deadline 27 has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a fully complete Application to Proceed In 28 Forma Pauperis on this Court’s approved form, or filed the first three pages of the 1 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and an affidavit detailing the efforts he took to 2 acquire a financial certificate and inmate account statement from prison officials, or paid 3 the full $400 filing fee. 4 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 5 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 6 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 7 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 8 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 9 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 10 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 11 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 12 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 13 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 14 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 15 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 16 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 17 local rules). 18 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 19 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 20 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 21 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 22 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 23 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 25 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 26 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 27 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 28 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 1 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 2 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 3 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 4 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 5 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 6 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 7 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a fully complete Application to 8 Proceed In Forma Pauperis on this Court’s approved form, or file the first three pages of 9 the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and submit an affidavit detailing the efforts 10 he took to acquire a financial certificate and inmate account statement from prison 11 officials, or pay the full $400 filing fee no later than January 6, 2020, stated: “IT IS 12 FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, the Court 13 will dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 9 at 3). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 14 warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file 15 a fully complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on this Court’s approved form, 16 or file the first three pages of the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and submit 17 an affidavit detailing the efforts he took to acquire a financial certificate and inmate 18 account statement from prison officials, or pay the full $400 filing fee no later than January 19 6, 2020. 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT 21 PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a fully complete Application to Proceed In 22 Forma Pauperis on this Court’s approved form, or file the first three pages of the 23 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and submit an affidavit detailing the efforts he 24 took to acquire a financial certificate and inmate account statement from prison officials, 25 or pay the full $400 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s December 5, 2019, order. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a copy of his civil rights 28 complaint (ECF No. 10) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff is advised there is a per page charge for copy work. Copies produced from an electronic format (CM-ECF) are $0.10 per page; 2 copies produced from a physical format are $0.50 per page. The Court cannot provide 3 copies or mailing service for parties, even indigent plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis. If Plaintiff wishes to receive copies of electronically filed documents from the Court, the 5| cost is $0.10 per page. D. Nev. Civ. R. IC 1-1(i)(5);

. 6 7 DATED: July 1, 2020. oe Beer— 9 RICHA ARE, |i 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-