1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 CYRIS GILBERT, Case No. 3:20-cv-00470-MMD-CLB

6 Plaintiff, ORDER

7 v.

8 STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF 9 CORRECTIONS, et al.

10 Defendants.

11 12 13 This action began with pro se Plaintiff Cyris Gilbert’s motion for emergency medical 14 preliminary/TRO inunction filed while incarcerated at the Ely State Prison. On August 19, 15 2020, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 16 pauperis, without prejudice, because the application was incomplete. (ECF No. 3 at 3.) 17 Additionally, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a complaint to the Court and file a fully 18 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis application or pay the full filing fee of 19 $400 on or before October 19, 2020. (Id. at 2-3.) The October 19, 2020 deadline has now 20 expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a complaint, another application to proceed in forma 21 pauperis, paid the full $400 filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 22 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 23 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 24 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 25 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 26 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 27 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 28 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) 1 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 2 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 3 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 4 v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure 5 to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) 6 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 7 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 8 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 9 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 10 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 11 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 12 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 14 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 15 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 16 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 17 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 18 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 19 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 20 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors weighing in favor 21 of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 22 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 23 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a complaint and another application to 25 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $400 filing fee on or before October 19, 2020 26 expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file a complaint 27 and a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or 28 pay the full $400 filing fee for a civil action on or before October 19, 2020, the Court will 1 dismiss this action without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a 2 new case number, when Plaintiff is able to file a complaint and has all three documents 3 needed to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the full $400 4 filing fee.” (ECF No. 3 at 3.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would 5 result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file a complaint and another 6 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $400 filing fee on or before October 7 19, 2020. 8 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 9 Plaintiff’s failure to file a complaint and another application to proceed in forma pauperis 10 or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated August 19, 2020. 11 It is further ordered that the motion for informal notice (ECF No. 4) is denied as 12 moot. 13 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 14 DATED THIS 26th Day of October 2020. 15 16

17 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25 26 27 28