1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * *

9 WILLIAM APFEL, Case No. 2:20-cv-00162-GMN-BNW

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 JERRY HOWELL, et al.,

13 Defendants.

14 15 This action is a pro se civil rights action filed pursuant to

by a 16 prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections. On November 13, 17 2020, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend the 18 Fourteenth Amendment claim and directed Plaintiff to file any amended complaint within 19 30 days of the date of that order. (ECF No. 7 at 14-15). The time period for filing an 20 amended complaint has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or 21 otherwise responded to the Court’s order. District courts have the inherent power to 22 control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions 23 including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City 24 of Los Angeles,

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

(9th Cir. 27 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 28 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment 1 of complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure 2 to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); 3 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 4 comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

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

; Henderson,

; Malone,

; 12 Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

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

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy 19 favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor 20 of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 21 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 22 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 23 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 24 thirty days expressly warned Plaintiff that this action would be dismissed with prejudice if 25 he failed to timely amend the complaint. (ECF No. 7 at 15). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 26 warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file 27 an amended complaint within thirty days. 28 For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 1 forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) without having to prepay the full filing fee is granted. Plaintiff 2 shall not be required to pay an initial installment fee. Nevertheless, the full filing fee shall 3 still be due, pursuant to

, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform 4 Act. The movant herein is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the 5 necessity of prepayment of fees or costs or the giving of security therefor. 6 It is further ordered that, pursuant to

, as amended by the Prison 7 Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections will forward payments from 8 the account of William Apfel, # 82215 to the Clerk of the United States District Court, 9 District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits (in months that the account 10 exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of 11 the Court will send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. The 12 Clerk will send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the 13 Nevada Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702. 14 It is further ordered that, regardless of the success of Plaintiff’s action, the full filing 15 fee shall still be due, pursuant to

, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation 16 Reform Act. 17 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s 18 failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s November 13, 2020 19 order and for failure to state a claim. 20 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. No 21 further documents shall be filed in this closed case. 22 DATED THIS 2 1 day of D e c e m b e r 2020. 23

24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28