Brooks v. Alzate

District Court, D. Nevada

Brooks v. Alzate

Trial Court Opinion

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6 ANTHONY BROOKS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00135-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ALZATE et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 13

1983 by a state prisoner. On February 3, 2021, this Court issued an order denying 14 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because Plaintiff had “three strikes” 15 pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(g). (ECF No. 13.) The Court informed Plaintiff that if he did 16 not pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within thirty days of the date of that order, the Court 17 would dismiss the action without prejudice. (Id. at 2.) The thirty-day period has now 18 expired, and Plaintiff has not paid the full filing fee of $400.00. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

782 F.2d 829

, 831 22 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 23 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 24 See Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53-54

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 25 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61

(9th Cir. 1992) 26 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 27 Carey v. King,

856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 28 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 1 v. U.S. Postal Service,

833 F.2d 128, 130

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure 2 to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

779 F.2d 1421, 1424

(9th Cir. 1986) 3 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 4 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 5 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, a court must consider several factors: 6 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 7 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 8 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 9 See Thompson,

782 F.2d at 831

; Henderson,

779 F.2d at 1423-24

; Malone,

833 F.2d at 10

130; Ferdik,

963 F.2d at 1260-61

; Ghazali,

46 F.3d at 53

. 11 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 12 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 13 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 14 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 15 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 16 West,

542 F.2d 522, 524

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 17 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 18 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 19 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 20 requirement. Ferdik,

963 F.2d at 1262

; Malone,

833 F.2d at 132-33

; Henderson,

779 F.2d 21 at 1424

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee within thirty days 22 expressly stated: “It is further ordered that this action will be dismissed without prejudice 23 unless Plaintiff pays the $400.00 filing fee in full within 30 days from the date of entry of 24 this Order.” (ECF No. 13 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would 25 result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to pay the full filing fee within thirty 26 days. 27 /// 28 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 2|| Plaintiff's failure to pay the $400.00 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s February 3, 2021, order. 4 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment accordingly. 6 DATED THIS 10 Day of March 2021. 7 / CL 8 IRANDA M. DU 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown