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

4 RONALD ALLISON, Case No. 2:20-cv-02026-GMN-DJA

5 Plaintiff, ORDER

6 v.

7 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER PSYCHIATRIC WARD, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10

11 On November 4, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a fully 12 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400 on or 13 before January 4, 2021. (ECF No. 3 at 2). On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed an 14 incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4). The January 4, 2021 15 deadline has now expired and Plaintiff has not filed a fully complete application to proceed 16 in forma pauperis or paid the full $400 filing fee. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 18 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 19 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 20 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 21 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 22 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 23 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 24 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 25 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 26 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 27 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 28 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 2 local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 4 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 8 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 10 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 11 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 12 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 13 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 14 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 15 West,

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

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 20 F.2d at 1424. 21 The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a fully complete application to proceed 22 in forma pauperis or pay the full $400 filing fee on or before January 4, 2021 expressly 23 stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file a fully complete 24 application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $400 25 filing fee for a civil action on or before January 4, 2021, this case will be subject to 26 dismissal without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new case 27 number, when Plaintiff has all three documents needed to file a complete application to 28 proceed in forma pauperis or pays the full $400 filing fee." (ECF No. 3 at 3). Thus, 1 Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with 2 the Court’s order to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 3 the full $400 filing fee on or before January 4, 2021. 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s incomplete application to proceed in 5 forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile his case with 6 the Court under a new case number, when Plaintiff has all three documents needed to 7 file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the full filing fee. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based 9 on Plaintiff’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 10 the full $400 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated November 4, 2020. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 12 accordingly and close this case. No additional documents will be filed in this closed case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 DATED: J_a_n_u_a__r_y_ _1_4_,_ _2_0 21 15 ___ 16 GLORIA M. NAVARRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24 25 26 27 28