1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Case No.: 2:19-cv-00586-JAD-DJA Jose Gallimort, 5 Plaintiff 6 Order Dismissing Action v. and Closing Case 7 Offender Management Division, et al., 8 Defendants 9 10 Plaintiff Jose Gallimort brings this civil-rights case under § 1983 for events he alleges 11 occurred during his incarceration at High Desert State Prison.1 On June 17, 2020, I ordered 12 Gallimort to file an amended complaint by July 16, 2020.2 I expressly warned him that his 13 failure to timely comply with the order would result in the dismissal of this case.3 The deadline 14 has passed, and Gallimort has not filed an amended complaint. 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 16 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.4 A 17 court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 18 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.5 In determining whether to

19 1 ECF No. 1-1 (complaint). 20

21 2 ECF No. 6 (order).

22 3 Id.

23 4 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 24 5 See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with 25 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

, 1440– 26 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 27 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

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

, 28 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 1 1 || dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 2 || local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 3 || resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 4 || defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 5 || availability of less drastic alternatives.® 6 I find that the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving the 7 || litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissing this case 8 || The risk-of-prejudice factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 9 || arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 10 || prosecuting an action.’ The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 11 || dismissal, and a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in 12 || dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement.* Gallimort was warned that his 13 would be dismissed with prejudice if he failed to file an amended complaint by July 16, 14 || 2020.? So, Gallimort had adequate warning that his failure to file an amended complaint by the 15 || deadline would result in this case’s dismissal. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice 17 || based on Gallimort’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this court’s June 18 || 17, 2020, order; and 19 The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS 20 || CASE. 9 mee Dated: August 6, 2020

23 |) Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

; 95 Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

.

6 1 See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). 97 ||° Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. 28 ||° ECF No. 6 (order).