2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 Case No. 3:19-cv-00636-MMD-CLB 6 MARCUS BLACKWELL, ORDER 7 Plaintiff, v. 8 JAMES DZURENDA, et al., 9 Defendants.

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

12 by a state prisoner. On September 28, 2020, Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin issued an 13 order directing Plaintiff to file his updated address with Judge Baldwin on or before 14 October 28, 2020. (ECF No. 6.) The deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed 15 his updated address or otherwise responded to the Judge Baldwin’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 L.A.,

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

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

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

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

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

(9th Cir. 1986) 28 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 2 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 3 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, a court must consider several factors: 4 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 5 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 6 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,

. Judge Baldwin’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address on or before 20 October 28, 2020, expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to timely 21 comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice.” (ECF No. 6.) 22 Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance 23 with Judge Baldwin’s order to file his updated address on or before October 28, 2020. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 2|| Plaintiffs failure to file an updated address in compliance with Judge □□□□□□□□□ 3|| September 28, 2020 order. 4 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) 5|| is denied as moot. 6 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment accordingly. 8 DATED THIS 3 Day of November 2020. _ Lo □ 10 MIRANDA M. DU 44 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28