1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 RICHARD IDEN, Case No. 3:19-cv-00624-RFB-WGC

4 Plaintiff ORDER

5 v.

6 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 7 Defendant

8 9 This action began with a pro se civil rights Notice of Intent filed pursuant to 42

civil rights complaint by a prisoner incarcerated at Ely State Prison. On 11 October 15, 2019, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file a complaint and a fully complete 12 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on this Court’s approved form, with an inmate 13 account statement for the past six months and a properly executed financial certificate, 14 or pay the full $400 filing fee for a civil action within thirty (30) days from the date of that 15 order. (ECF No. 3 at 2). 16 On November 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to comply with 17 the Court’s order because he had not yet received his required financial documents from 18 the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”). (ECF No. 4 at 1). 19 On November 13, 2019, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time 20 and ordered Plaintiff to file a complaint and a fully complete Application to Proceed In 21 Forma Pauperis with complete financial attachments or pay the full $400 filing fee for a 22 civil action within thirty (30) days from the date of that order. (ECF No. 5). 23 On November 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Compliance” and attached a 24 financial certificate and an inmate account statement for the past six months. (ECF No. 25 6). 26 On December 4, 2019, this Court granted Plaintiff one final opportunity to submit 27 a complaint to this Court and a fully complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, 28 on this Court’s approved form, with complete financial attachments, including an inmate 1 account statement for the past six months and a properly executed financial certificate, 2 or pay the full $400 filing fee for a civil action within thirty (30) days from the date of that 3 order. (ECF No. 7). 4 On December 20, 2019, in response to this Court’s December 4, 2019 order, 5 Plaintiff filed a financial certificate and inmate account statement only. (ECF No. 8). As 6 such, Plaintiff’s filings remain incomplete. Plaintiff has not filed a complaint in this matter 7 or a fully complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on this Court’s approved 8 form. The thirty-day period from the Court’s December 4, 2019 order (ECF No. 7) has 9 now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a complaint or fully complete Application to 10 Proceed In Forma Pauperis, or paid the full $400 filing fee. 11 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 12 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 13 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 14 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 15 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 16 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 17 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 18 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 19 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 20 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 21 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 22 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 23 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 24 local rules). 25 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 26 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 27 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 28 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 1 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 2 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 4 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 5 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 6 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 7 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 8 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 9 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 11 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 12 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 13 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 14 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a complaint and a fully complete 15 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on this Court’s approved form, or pay the full 16 $400 filing fee within thirty days expressly stated the Court would dismiss the case without 17 prejudice. (ECF No. 7 at 3). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would 18 result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file a complaint and a fully 19 complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on this Court’s approved form, or pay 20 the full $400 filing fee within thirty days. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to Plaintiff's failure to file a complaint and a fully complete Application to Proceed /n Forma Pauperis on this Court’s approved form, or pay the full $400 filing in 4) compliance with this Court’s December 4, 2019, order. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. 6| ITIS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED: July 1, 2020. 8 9 aICHERO SSuLWAREI 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-