1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 RICHARD WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:20-cv-01095-APG-DJA

4 Plaintiff ORDER

v. 5 CHARLES DANIELS, et al., 6 Defendants

7 8 9 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

by a 10 prisoner incarcerated at the High Desert State Prison. On June 18, 2020, Magistrate Judge 11 Albregts issued an order denying plaintiff Richard Williams’ application to proceed in forma 12 pauperis, without prejudice, because the application was incomplete. ECF No. 3 at 2. Judge 13 Albregts ordered Williams to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or 14 pay the full filing fee of $400.00 by August 17, 2020.

. That deadline has now expired, 15 and Williams has not filed another application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full filing 16 fee, or otherwise responded to the order. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 18 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 19 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

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

, 53- 22 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 23

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order 1 requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) 2 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court 3 apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 4 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1424

5 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 6 rules). 7 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a 8 court order, or failure to comply with local rules, I must consider several factors: (1) the public’s 9 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 10 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 11 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See Thompson,

; 12 Henderson,

; Malone,

; Ferdik,

; 13 Ghazali,

. 14 Here, the first two factors (the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation

15 and my interest in managing the docket) weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor (risk of 16 prejudice to the defendants) also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 17 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 18 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 19 factor (public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits) is greatly outweighed by the 20 factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his 21 failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 22 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 23

. Judge Albregts’ order expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if 1}| Plaintiff does not file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $400 filing fee for a civil action on or before August 17, 2020, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, 4! under a new case number, when Plaintiff has all three documents needed to file a complete 5] application to proceed in forma pauperis.” ECF No. 3 at 3. Thus, Williams had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with Judge Albregts’ order. 7 I THEREFORE ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiff Richard Williams’ failure to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full 9}| filing fee in compliance with Judge Albregts’ June 18, 2020 order. 10 I FURTHER ORDER the Clerk of Court to close the case and enter judgment 11]| accordingly. 12 DATED: August 25, 2020. 13 14 ANDREW P. GORDON 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23