1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * *

6 ANTHONY BROOKS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00281-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 GARCIA, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 13 On May 15, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a fully 14 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400 on or 15 before July 14, 2020. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) The July 14, 2020 deadline has now expired, and 16 Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full $400 filing 17 fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 19 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 20 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 21 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 22 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 23 See Ghazali v. Moran,

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

(9th Cir. 1992) 25 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 26 Carey v. King,

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

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure 1 to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) 2 (affirming 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. 8 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; 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—the 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 18 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 19 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. 21 The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma 22 pauperis or pay the full filing fee on or before July 14, 2020 expressly stated: “IT IS 23 FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file a fully complete application to proceed 24 in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $400 filing fee for a civil action 25 on or before July 14, 2020, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for Plaintiff 26 to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when Plaintiff has all three 27 documents needed to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis.” (ECF No. 28 4 at 3.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 1 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 or pay the full filing fee on or before July 14, 2020. 3 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 4 Plaintiff’s failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $400 5 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated May 15, 2020. 6 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 7 No additional documents may be filed in this closed case. 8 DATED THIS 21st day of July 2020. 9

10 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11

12

13

14

15

16

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