1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 MARK S. NELSON, Case No.: 3:20-CV-00164-RCJ-WGC

4 Plaintiff ORDER

5 v.

6 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 9 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

1983 by a state prisoner. On May 20, 2020, the Court issued an order dismissing the 11 complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 12 30 days. (ECF No. 4). The 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed 13 an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. District courts have 14 the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may 15 impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. 16 Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 17 dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 18 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 19

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); 20 Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for 21 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local 23 rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 24 Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with 25 court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (affirming 26 dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 27 /// 28 /// 1 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to 2 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several 3 factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 4 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 5 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 6 alternatives. See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; 7 Malone,

; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 8 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 9 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 10 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also 11 weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 12 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. 13 See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public 14 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors 15 in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his 16 failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 17 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; 18 Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended 19 complaint within 30 days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff 20 fails to file an amended complaint on or before June 22, 2020, the action may be 21 dismissed.” (ECF No. 4). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would 22 result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint within 23 30 days. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s 3| May 20, 2020, order. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will enter judgment 5 | accordingly and close this case. 6 7 DATED this 2"¢ day of March, 2021.

9 he C. vs 40 UNITED STATEY DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-