1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 LAWRANCE DEAN GREEN, Case No. 2:20-cv-01284-RFB-BNW

6 Plaintiff ORDER

7 v.

8 NATALIE A. WOOD, et al.,

9 Defendants

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

by a 13 prisoner incarcerated at Three Lakes Valley Conservation Camp. On July 15, 2020, this Court 14 issued an order denying the Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, without prejudice, 15 because the application was incomplete. ECF No. 3 at 2. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully 16 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400 on or before 17 September 11, 2020.

. The September 11, 2020 deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff 18 has not filed another application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise 19 responded to the Court’s order. 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 21 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 22 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

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

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

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 27 amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 28 dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 1 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

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

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

; 9 Henderson,

; Malone,

; Ferdik,

; Ghazali, 10

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

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

; Malone,

- 20 33; Henderson,

. 21 The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file another application to proceed in forma 22 pauperis or pay the full filing fee on or before September 11, 2020 expressly stated: “IT IS 23 FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file a fully complete application to proceed in 24 forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $400 filing fee for a civil action on or 25 before September 11, 2020, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for Plaintiff to 26 refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when Plaintiff has all three documents 27 needed to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis.” ECF No. 3 at 3. Thus, 28 Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the 1 Court’s order to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee on or before September 11, 2020. 3 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 5 | Plaintiffs failure to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee 6 | compliance with this Court’s July 15, 2020 order. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORERED that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment accordingly. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 9 10 11 DATED: September 23, 2020 AS 13 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, □□ 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-