2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 AARON A WEBB, Case No. 3:19-cv-00305-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 WARDEN WILLIAM GITTERE, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Plaintiff was an incarcerated person when he filed a pro se civil rights complaint 12 filed under

. On May 18, 2020, this Court issued an order directing 13 Plaintiff to file his updated address and a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis (“IFP Application”) with this Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 8.) The 30-day period 15 has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address, filed an IFP Application, 16 or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 18 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 19 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 20 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 21 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 22 See Ghazali v. Moran,

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

(9th Cir. 1992) 24 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 25 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 26 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 27 v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure 28 /// 2 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 4 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 8 See Thompson,

; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

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

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 16 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 17 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 18 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 19 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address and file an IFP 21 Application with the Court within 30 days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 22 that, if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this case 23 without prejudice.” (ECF No. 8 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal 24 would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address 25 and an IFP Application within 30 days. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address and a non-prisoner application to proceed in 3|| forma pauperis in compliance with this Court’s May 18, 2020, order. 4 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly. 6 DATED THIS 8" day of September 2020. 7 { . _ MIRAN 5A M. DU 8 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28