1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 BILLY R. JONES, Case No. 3:20-cv-00466-APG-WGC

4 Plaintiff ORDER

v. 5 D. DRUMMOND, et al., 6 Defendants

7 8 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

by a 9 state prisoner. On August 14, 2020, Magistrate Judge Cobb ordered plaintiff Billy R. Jones to 10 file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400 by 11 October 13, 2020. ECF No. 6 at 3. Judge Cobb also ordered Jones to file an updated address 12 with the court by October 13, 2020.

. The October 13, 2020 deadline has now expired and 13 Jones has not filed a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee, 14 filed an updated address, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 16 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 17 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 18 dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey 19 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th 20 Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 22 amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 23 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. 3 1986) (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

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

; 9 Henderson,

; Malone,

; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 10 Ghazali,

. 11 Here, the first two factors (the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 12 and my interest in managing the docket), weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor (risk of 13 prejudice to the defendants) also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 14 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or

15 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 16 factor (public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits) is greatly outweighed by the 17 factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his 18 failure to obey an order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 19 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone,

; Henderson,

1424. Judge Cobb’s order expressly stated that if Jones “does not file a fully complete 21 application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $400 filing fee 22 for a civil action on or before October 13, 2020, the Court will dismiss this action without 23 prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when Plaintiff all three documents needed to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the full $400 filing fee.” ECF No. 6 at 3. Judge Cobb’s order also stated that if Jones “fails to file his updated address with the Court on or before October 13, 2020, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice.” Thus, Jones had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with Judge Cobb’s order. 6 I THEREFORE ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiff Billy R. Jones’ failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $400 8|| filing fee and Jones’ failure to file an updated address with the court in compliance with this court’s order dated August 14, 2020. 10 I FURTHER ORDER the Clerk of Court to close the case and enter judgment. 11 DATED: October 19, 2020. 12 OIE 13 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23