Brooks v. Davis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Anthony Brooks, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00150-JAD-CLB Plaintiff v. Order Dismissing and Closing Case

Davis, et al.,

Defendants

Plaintiff Anthony Brooks brings this civil-rights action for events he alleges occurred during his incarceration with the Nevada Department of Corrections.1 On February 3, 2021, I denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis because he has “three strikes” under 28 12 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and failed to demonstrate that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury.2 I gave him until March 5, 2021, to pay the $400 filing fee in full.3 I expressly warned him that his failure to pay the filing fee in full by that deadline would result in the dismissal of this case.4 That deadline has passed, and Brooks has not paid the filing fee. 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.5 A court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action,

1 ECF No. 5 (amended complaint).

ECF No. 9 (order).

Id.

4 Id.

Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.6 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (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.7

I find that the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving the litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissing this case. The risk-of-prejudice factor 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.8 The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal, and 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 requirement.9 Brooks was warned that his case would be dismissed if he did not pay the $400 filing fee in full by March 5, 2021.10 So, 15 Brooks had adequate warning that his failure to pay the fee would result in this case’s dismissal.

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

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.

10 ECF No. 9 (order). ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and

The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.

Dated: March 10, 2021

Pires

US. District Jhage

1]