1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 MARCELL WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00639-RFB-BNW

4 Plaintiff ORDER

5 v.

6 WARDEN OF SOUTHERN DESERT CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 10 11 On April 3, 2020, Plaintiff, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada 12 Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

, together with an incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis, a 14 motion for preliminary injunction, and a temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 1, 2). 15 On June 5, 2020, this Court issued an order denying the Plaintiff’s application to 16 proceed in forma pauperis, without prejudice, because the application was incomplete. 17 (ECF No. 28 at 10-11). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully complete application to 18 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400 within 60 days from the date 19 of that order. (Id. at 10). The 60-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed 20 another application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full $400 filing fee, or otherwise 21 responded to the Court’s order with respect to an application to proceed in forma 22 pauperis. 23 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 24 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 25 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 26 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 27 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 28 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 1 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 2 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 3 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 4 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 5 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 6 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 7 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 8 local rules). 9 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 10 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 11 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 12 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 13 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 14 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 16 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 17 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 18 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 19 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 20 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 21 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 22 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 23 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 24 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 25 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 26 F.2d at 1424. 27 The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file another application to proceed in forma 28 pauperis or pay the full $400 filing fee within 60 days expressly stated: “If Plaintiff does 1 | 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 within 60 days of the date of this order, the 3 Court will dismiss the action.” (ECF No. 28 at 11). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning 4) that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $400 filing fee within 60 days. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 7 | based on Plaintiff's failure to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 8 | the full $400 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s June 5, 2020, order. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter 10 | judgment accordingly. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any continuing orders or outstanding motions are 12 | vacated without prejudice. 13 DATED: September 3, 2020 14 15 vom WARE, II 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28