2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JAMIL GERONIMO, Case No. 3:19-cv-00586-MMD-WGC Plaintiff, 7 v. ORDER

8 WASHOE COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

9 Defendants.

10 11 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

12 by a former county inmate. On July 21, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff 13 to file his updated address with this Court on or before August 21, 2020. (ECF No. 5.) The 14 deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise 15 responded to the Court’s order. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise 17 of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a 18 case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 19 A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 20 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. 21 Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local 22 rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for 23 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

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

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

(9th Cir. 1986) (affirming 28 dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 2 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 3 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 5 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See 6 Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

; 7 Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

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

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 14 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 15 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the 16 court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 17 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court on 19 or before August 21, 2020, expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff 20 fails to timely comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” 21 (ECF No. 5.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 22 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address on or before August 21, 23 2020. 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 21, 2020, 26 order. 27 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) 28 and the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) are denied without prejudice. 1 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court close the case and enter judgment 2 || accordingly. 3 4 DATED THIS day of August 2020. 5 —

7 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28