1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Anthony Brooks, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00150-JAD-CLB

4 Plaintiff

5 v. Order Dismissing and Closing Case 6 Davis, et al.,

7 Defendants

8

9 Plaintiff Anthony Brooks brings this civil-rights action for events he alleges occurred 10 during his incarceration with the Nevada Department of Corrections.1 On February 3, 2021, I 11 denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis because he has “three strikes” under 28

(g) and failed to demonstrate that he was under imminent danger of serious 13 physical injury.2 I gave him until March 5, 2021, to pay the $400 filing fee in full.3 I expressly 14 warned him that his failure to pay the filing fee in full by that deadline would result in the 15 dismissal of this case.4 That deadline has passed, and Brooks has not paid the filing fee. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 17 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.5 A 18 court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 19 20

21 1 ECF No. 5 (amended complaint). 2 ECF No. 9 (order). 22 3

23 4

5 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

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

6 availability of less drastic alternatives.7 7 I find that the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving the 8 litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissing this case. 9 The risk-of-prejudice factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 10 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 11 prosecuting an action.8 The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 12 dismissal, and a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in 13 dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement.9 Brooks was warned that his 14 case would be dismissed if he did not pay the $400 filing fee in full by March 5, 2021.

Brooks had adequate warning that his failure to pay the fee would result in this case’s dismissal. 16

6 See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with 17 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

, 1440– 18 41 (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,

(9th Cir. 19 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 20 7 Thompson,

; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; Malone,

; 21 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61; Ghazali,

. 8 See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). 22 9 Ferdik,

; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson,

. 23 10 ECF No. 9 (order). ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without 2|| prejudice; and 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. 5 Dated: March 10, 2021 Pires US. District Jhage 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23