1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 DANIEL JUAREZ, Case No. 3:20-cv-00247-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 GETTERE, et. al., 9 Defendants.

10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

13 by a state prisoner. On July 6, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff Daniel 14 Juarez to file his updated address with this Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 5.) The 30-day 15 period has now expired. Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded 16 to the Court’s order. As further explained below, the Court will dismiss this action for failure 17 to file an updated address. 18 II. LEGAL STANDARD 19 District courts have inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 20 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a 21 case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

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

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

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for 26 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 28 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 1 Service,

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

(9th Cir. 1986) (affirming 3 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 Defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 8 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See 9 Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

; 10 Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 11 III. DISCUSSION 12 In this case, the Court finds the first two factors: (1) the public’s interest in 13 expeditiously resolving this litigation; and (2) the Court’s interest in managing its docket, 14 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs 15 in favor of dismissal, as a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 16 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the Court or prosecuting an action. See 17 Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public 18 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors 19 weighing in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, the Court’s warning that a failure 20 to obey the Court’s order will result in dismissal (ECF No. 5 at 1, 2) satisfies the 21 “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

132-33; Henderson,

. 23 The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the Court within 24 30 days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with 25 this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Thus, 26 Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with 27 the Court’s order to file his updated address within 30 days. 28 /// IV. CONCLUSION 2 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with the Court's July 6, 2020 order (ECF No. 5). 5 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) 6|| is denied as moot. 7 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 8 DATED THIS 24" Day of August 2020. 9 10 11 (OL) 42 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28