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

4 LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01935-GMN-NJK

5 Plaintiffs, ORDER

6 v.

7 DANA EVERAGE, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 11 On November 5, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiffs Laustevion 12 Johnson (“Johnson”), Christopher Smith (“Smith”), and Warith Deen Abdullah 13 (“Abdullah”) to each file a fully complete applications to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 14 the full filing fee of $400 on or before January 4, 2021. (ECF No. 3 at 3). The January 4, 15 2021 deadline has now expired and Plaintiffs Johnson, Smith, and Abdullah have not 16 each filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full $400 filing fee, or 17 otherwise responded to the Court's order. 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 Plaintiffs to each file a fully complete application to 23 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $400 filing fee on or before January 4, 2020 24 expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Johnson, Smith, or Abdullah do not 25 each file their own separate and fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis 26 with all three documents or pay the full $400 filing fee for a civil action on or before January 27 4, 2021, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice as to that Plaintiff in non- 28 compliance for that Plaintiff to file a new case with the Court, under a new case number, 1 when he has all three documents needed to file a complete application to proceed in 2 forma pauperis or pays the full $400 filing fee.” (ECF No. 3 at 3). Thus, Plaintiffs Johnson, 3 Smith, and Abdullah had adequate warning that dismissal would result from their non- 4 compliance with the Court’s order to each file an application to proceed in forma pauperis 5 or pay the full $400 filing fee on or before January 4, 2021. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 7 based on Plaintiffs’ failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the 8 full $400 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated November 5, 2020. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 10 accordingly and close this case. No additional documents will be filed in this closed case. January 14, 2021 11 DATED: ______________ 12 ___ 13 GLORIA M. NAVARRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28