1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 PAUL CHIGAL, Case No. 3:20-cv-00455-GMN-WGC

5 Plaintiff, ORDER

6 v.

7 CHARLES DANIEL, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 11 On August 7, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a fully 12 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400 on or 13 before October 6, 2020. (ECF No. 3 at 2). On September 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed an 14 application to proceed in formal pauperis. (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff’s application at ECF No. 15 4 is incomplete, as it does not include the required Financial Certificate. The October 6, 16 2020 deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a fully complete application to 17 proceed in forma pauperis or paid the full $400 filing fee. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 19 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 20 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 21 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 22 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 23 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 24 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 25 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 26 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 27 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 28 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 1 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 2 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 3 local rules). 4 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 5 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 6 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 7 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 8 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 9 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 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 14 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 15 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 16 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 17 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 18 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 19 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 20 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 21 F.2d at 1424. 22 The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a fully complete application to proceed 23 in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee on or before October 6, 2020 expressly stated: 24 “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file a fully complete application to 25 proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $400 filing fee for a 26 civil action on or before October 6, 2020, the Court will dismiss this action without 27 prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when 28 Plaintiff has all three documents needed to file a complete application to proceed in forma 1 pauperis or pays the full $400 filing fee." (ECF No. 3 at 3). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 2 warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file 3 a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee on or 4 before October 6, 2020. 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 6 based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis 7 or pay the full $400 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated August 7, 2020. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s incomplete application to proceed 9 in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is denied as moot. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 11 accordingly and close this case. No additional documents will be filed in this now closed 12 case. October 17, 2020 13 DATED: ______________ 14 ___ 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28