2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 RICHARD D. AUSTIN, Case No. 3:19-cv-00274-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8

9 SONYA CARILLO, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

1983 by state prisoner Richard D. Austin. On March 17, 2020, the Court issued a 14 screening order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file 15 an amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff filed an amended 16 complaint, and the Court issued a second screening order on June 2, 2020. (ECF No. 17 10.) The Court’s second screening order dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 18 with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint within thirty 19 days. (Id.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a second 20 amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s second screening order. 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 22 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 23 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 24 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 25 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 26 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 27 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) 28 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 2 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 3 v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure 4 to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) 5 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 6 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 7 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 8 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 9 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 10 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 11 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 13 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 14 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 15 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 16 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 17 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 18 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 19 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 20 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 21 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 22 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint within 24 thirty days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that if Plaintiff chooses not to file a 25 second amended complaint curing the deficiencies of [the first amended complaint], this 26 action will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 10 at 8.) 27 Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance 28 with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on 2 || Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s June 2, 3 || 2020, order (ECF No. 10). 4 It is further ordered that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is 5 || denied as moot. 6 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly. 7 DATED THIS 6" day of August 2020. {Gn 9 / MIRANDA M. DU 10 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28