1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 THOMAS W. CURTIS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00630-RFB-WGC

4 Plaintiff ORDER

5 v.

6 LAKES CROSSING CENTER,

7 Defendant

8 9 10 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

11 by a prisoner residing at the Lakes Crossing Center. On November 13, 2020, this Court 12 issued an order denying the Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, without 13 prejudice, because the application was incomplete. (ECF No. 3 at 3). The Court ordered 14 Plaintiff to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full 15 filing fee of $400 on or before January 12, 2021, 2020. (Id. at 3). The January 12, 2021 16 deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed another application to proceed in 17 forma pauperis, paid the full $400 filing fee, or 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. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file another application to proceed 22 in forma pauperis or pay the full $400 filing fee or before January 12, 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 12, 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 2-3). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from noncompliance with the Court’s order to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $400 3 filing fee on or before January 12, 2020. 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 5 | based on Plaintiff's failure to file another application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 6 the full $400 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated November 13, 2020. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter 8 | judgment accordingly. No additional documents will be filed in this closed case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: January 26, 2021 1 M2 12 RICHARD HOOD ARE, Il 43 UNITED STA DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-