1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 IVAN LEE MATTHEWS, II, Case No. 2:21-cv-00120-APG-NJK

4 Plaintiff ORDER

v. 5 SCALLEY, et al., 6 Defendants

7 8 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

by 9 plaintiff Ivan Lee Matthews, II, a state prisoner. On January 25, 2021, Magistrate Judge Koppe 10 ordered Matthews to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the 11 full filing fee of $402 on or before March 26, 2021. ECF No. 3 at 2. On February 4, 2021, 12 Matthews filed a second incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. The 13 March 26, 2021 deadline has now expired, and Matthews has not filed a fully complete 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the full $402 filing fee. 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 16 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 17 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

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

, 53- 20 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 21

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order 22 requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) 23 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court 1 apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

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

, 1424 3 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 4 rules).

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

; 10 Henderson,

; Malone,

; Ferdik,

; 11 Ghazali,

. 12 Here, the first two factors (the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 13 and the Court’s interest in managing the docket) weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor 14 (risk of prejudice to the defendants) also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of

15 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 16 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

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

; Malone,

; Henderson, 21

. Judge Koppe’s order expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if 22 Plaintiff does not file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three 23 documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action on or before March 26, 2021, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under new case number, when Plaintiff has all three documents needed to file a complete application 3|| to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the the full $402 filing fee." Thus, Matthews had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with Judge Koppe’s order. 5 I THEREFORE ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiff 6|| Ivan Lee Matthews, II’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis 7|| or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with the January 25, 2021 order. 8 I FURTHER ORDER that the pending motion (ECF No. 4) is denied as moot. 9 I FURTHER ORDER the Clerk of Court to close the case and enter judgment 10|| accordingly. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 11 DATED: April 5, 2021. 12 OIE 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23