2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 DANIEL JUAREZ, Case No. 3:20-cv-00194-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8

9 DR. HANF, et. al., Defendants. 10

11

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

1983 by state prisoner Daniel Juarez. On July 6, 2020, this Court issued an order directing 14 Plaintiff to file his updated address with this Court within thirty days. (ECF No. 8.) The 15 thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or 16 otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise 18 of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a 19 case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 20 A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 21 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. 22 Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); 23 Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply 24 with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

, 1440-41 25 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 26 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th 27 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply 2 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 3 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 4 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 5 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 6 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 7 Thompson,

; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone,

; 8 Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 9 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 10 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 11 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs 12 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 13 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See 14 Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy 15 favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor 16 of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 17 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 18 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court 20 within thirty days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply 21 with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 8 at 2.) Thus, 22 Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with 23 the Court’s order to file his updated address within thirty days. 24 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 25 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s July 6, 2020, 26 order. 27 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) 28 is denied as moot. 1 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly and close 2 || this case. No other documents will be filed in this closed case. 3 DATED THIS 18" day of July 2020. 4 — 5 ASA 6 MIRANDA M. DU ; 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