2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 DONTAE SMITH, Case No. 3:19-cv-00357-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 DR. WILLIAMSON, et al., 9 Defendants

10 11 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

12 by a state prisoner. On May 21, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file 13 his updated address with this Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 3.) The 30-day period has 14 now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded to the 15 Court’s order. The Court will therefore dismiss this case. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise 17 of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a 18 case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 19 A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 20 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. 21 Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local 22 rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for 23 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 25 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 26

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court 27 order); Henderson v. Duncan,

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

; Henderson,

; Malone,

; Ferdik, 963 7 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali,

. 8 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 9 factor—risk of prejudice to Defendants—also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 10 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 11 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

, 12 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 13 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, 14 a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal 15 satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone, 16

; Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to 17 file his updated address with the Court within 30 days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER 18 ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss 19 this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 3.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 20 dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated 21 address within 30 days. 22 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 23 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s May 21, 2020 24 order. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) 2 || is denied as moot. 3 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment accordingly and close 4 || this case. 5 DATED THIS 2" day of July 2020.

7 / — MIRANDA M. DU 8 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28