1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 RACHEL MARIE WHITTED Case No. 3:20-cv-00693-RCJ-WGC (#1212277), aka Ralph Whitted, 4 ORDER Plaintiff 5 v. 6 PERRY RUSSELL, et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 On December 14, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully complete 10 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $402 on or before 11 February 12, 2021. (ECF No. 3) On December 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed an incomplete 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff's application at ECF No. 13 4 was submitted without the required financial certificate and inmate account statement 14 for the previous six-month period. The February 12, 2021 deadline has now expired, and 15 Plaintiff has not filed a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the 16 full $402 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. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file another application to proceed 21 in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before February 12, 2021 expressly 22 stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file a complaint and a fully 23 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full 24 $402 filing fee for a civil action on or before February 12, 2021, this case will be subject 25 to dismissal without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new 26 case number, when Plaintiff is able to file a complaint and has all three documents needed 27 to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the the full $402 filing 28 fee.” (ECF No. 3 at 3). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result 1| from noncompliance with the Court’s order to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before February 12, 2021. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 4| based on Plaintiff's failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated December 14, 6) 2020. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions (ECF Nos. 4, 6) are denied as moot. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter 10 | judgment accordingly. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 11 DATED: February 23, 2021. 12 13 he C. 44 UNITED STATEY DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-