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

6 AARON SLEDGE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00341-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 TACIT, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 On June 11, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a fully 13 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400 on or 14 before August 10, 2020. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) In addition, on June 11, 2020, this Court issued 15 a second order directing Plaintiff to file a signed amended complaint on or before August 16 10, 2020. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) The August 10, 2020 deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff 17 has not filed a signed amended complaint, an application to proceed in forma pauperis, 18 paid the full $400 filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s orders. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 22 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 23 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 24 See Ghazali v. Moran,

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

(9th Cir. 1992) 26 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 27 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 28 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); 1 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for 2 failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

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

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 11 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 12 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 13 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 14 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 15 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 16 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring 17 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 18 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 19 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 20 requirement. See Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 21 F.2d at 1424. 22 The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma 23 pauperis or pay the full filing fee on or before August 10, 2020 expressly stated: “IT IS 24 FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file a fully complete application to proceed 25 in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $400 filing fee for a civil action 26 on or before August 10, 2020, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for 27 Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when Plaintiff has all 28 three documents needed to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis." 1 (ECF No. 3 at 3.) Further, the Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a signed amended 2 complaint on or before August 10, 2020 expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 3 that, if Plaintiff does not file a signed amended complaint on or before August 10, 2020, 4 the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the 5 Court, under a new case number, when Plaintiff is able to file a signed amended 6 complaint. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would 7 result from his noncompliance with the Court’s orders to file both a signed amended 8 complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee on or 9 before August 10, 2020. 10 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 11 Plaintiff’s failure to file both a signed amended complaint and an application to proceed 12 in forma pauperis, or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court’s orders dated 13 June 11, 2020. 14 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 15 No additional documents may be filed in this closed case. 16 DATED THIS 21st day of August 2020. 17 18

19 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20

21

22

23

24

25

26 27 28