1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ANGELO FERGUSON, Case No. 2:20-cv-02339-APG-VCF

4 Plaintiff ORDER

5 v.

6 HDSP MEDICAL ISSUES,

7 Defendant

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

by a 10 state prisoner. On December 29, 2020, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach ordered plaintiff Angelo 11 Ferguson to file a signed amended complaint and a fully complete application to proceed in forma 12 pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $402 on or before March 1, 2021. ECF No. 3 at 3. Following 13 Judge Ferenbach's order, Ferguson filed a supplement (ECF No. 4), an incomplete application to 14 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5), a motion for miscellaneous relief (ECF No. 9), a petition 15 for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 11), and another unsigned complaint (ECF No. 12) together 16 with a second incomplete IFP (ECF No. 12-1) and a notice of motion (ECF No. 12-2). The March 17 1, 2021 deadline has now expired, and Ferguson has not filed a signed amended complaint, a fully 18 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the full $402 filing fee. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 20 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 21 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

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

(9th 24 Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

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

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 27 dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 28 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal 1 for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

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

; 8 Henderson,

; Malone,

; Ferdik,

; Ghazali, 9

. 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 dismissal, 13 since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 14 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th 15 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is 16 greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning 17 to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the 18 “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

- 19 33; Henderson,

. Judge Ferenbach’s order expressly stated: "IT IS FURTHER 20 ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file a signed amended complaint on or before March 1, 2021, 21 this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, 22 under a new case number, when Plaintiff is able to file a signed amended complaint." Further, 23 Judge Ferenbach's order stated: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file a fully 24 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402 25 filing fee for a civil action on or before March 1, 2021, this case will be subject to dismissal without 26 prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when Plaintiff 27 has all three documents needed to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays 28 the full $402 filing fee." ECF No. 3 at 3. Thus, Ferguson had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with Judge Ferenbach’s order. 2 I THEREFORE ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiff 3 Angelo Ferguson's failure to file a signed amended complaint and a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this court’s order 5 | dated December 29, 2020. 6 I FURTHER ORDER that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment 7 | accordingly. 8 DATED: March 15, 2021 xe ANDREW P. GORDON 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-