1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 CAMERON CHURCH, Case No. 3:20-CV-00116-RCJ-WGC 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v.

6 WASHOE COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 7 Defendants.

8 On January 7, 2021, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file his updated 9 address with this Court on or before February 8, 2021. (ECF No. 8). The deadline has 10 now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded to 11 the Court’s order. 12 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 13 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 14 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 15 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 16 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 17 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 18 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 19 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 20 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 21 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 22 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

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

, 23 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 24 local rules). 25 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 26 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 27 (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 2 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 3 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 5 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 6 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 9|| in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 10|| West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 11|| disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 42\| dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 44|| requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 15 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the 16 Court on or before February 8, 2021 expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, 17 if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, this case will be subject to dismissal without 48 prejudice.” (ECF No. 8 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would 49 result from his noncompliance with the Court's order to file his updated address by 20 February 8, 2021. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT a" PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this 22 Court’s January 7, 2021, order. 2s It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment 24 accordingly. 25 26 DATED THIS 19th day of February 2021. 27 28 UNITED STATEY DISTRICT JUDGE