State of Nevada Supreme Courts v. Green

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case No.: 2:20-cv-01932-JAD-NJK State of Nevada Supreme Courts,

Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and

Recommendation, Dismissing Action, v. and Closing Case

Jonathan Green, [ECF No. 4]

Defendant

In October, the court ordered Jonathan Green to pay the filing fee to avoid having this case dismissed.1 When Green failed to do so, the magistrate judge recommended that I dismiss this case.2 The deadline for objections to that report and recommendation passed without any filing or payment of the fee, and “no review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”3

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.4 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.5 In determining whether to dismiss an action

1 ECF No. 3.

2 ECF No. 4.

3 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 24 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440– (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. ] on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.°

The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of this case. The third factor, of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.’ A court’s warning to a party that its failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of alternatives” requirement,® and that warning was given here.’ The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.

Accordingly, with good cause appearing and no reason to delay, IT IS HEREBY 14}]ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 4] is ADOPTED, and this case is ) DISMISSED for failure to pay the filing fee as directed by the court. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. oats

US. District fae Jenni fer A. Dorsey Dated: January 20, 2021

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). © Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

See Anderson y. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).

8 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. ? ECF Nos. 3, 4.