1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 SHAWN FLYNN, Case No. 2:19-cv-00741-GMN-EJY 4 Plaintiff ORDER 5 v.

6 DR. G. BRYAN, et al., Defendants 7 8 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

9 by a former state prisoner. On June 18, 2020, this Court issued an order screening 10 Plaintiff’s complaint and directing Plaintiff to file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 7.) The thirty-day period 11 expired without a response from Plaintiff. As Plaintiff had recently been released from 12 prison, the Court issued a second order directing Plaintiff to file a non-prisoner application 13 to proceed in forma pauperis with this Court within thirty (30) days on August 11, 2020. 14 (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff has again not filed a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 17 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 18 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 19 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 20 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 21 See Ghazali v. Moran,

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

(9th Cir. 23 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 24 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 25 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 26 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 27 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 2 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 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 7 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

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

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 15 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 16 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 17 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 18 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 19 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s screening order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address 20 and file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis with the Court within thirty 21 (30) days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to timely file a fully 22 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners; or (2) pay the full 23 filing fee of $400, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice.” (ECF No. 7 at 20-21.) 24 The Courts second order requiring Plaintiff to file a non-prisoner application to proceed in 25 forma pauperis with the Court within thirty (30) days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER 26 ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, this action will be 27 dismissed with prejudice.” (ECF No. 9 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 1 dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s orders to file a non- 2 prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis in a timely basis. 3 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on 4 Plaintiff’s failure to file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis in 5 compliance with this Court’s June 18, 2020 and August 11, 2020 orders. 6 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly.

7 DATED THIS _2_4__ day of September 2020. 8

9 Gloria M. Navarro, Judge 10 United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27