1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Cody Naylor, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00025-APG-CLB

4 Plaintiff Dismissal Order

5 v.

6 William A. Gittere, et al.,

7 Defendants

8

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

by 10 Cody Naylor, a former state prisoner. On March 9, 2021, Magistrate Judge Baldwin ordered 11 Naylor to file his updated address with this court by March 31, 2021. ECF No. 5. That deadline 12 has now expired and Naylor has not filed his updated address or otherwise responded to the 13 order. 14 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 15 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 16 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 17 dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 18 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53- 19 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 20

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order 21 requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) 22 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court 23 apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

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

, 1424 2 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 3 rules). 4 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a

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

; 9 Henderson,

; Malone,

; Ferdik,

; 10 Ghazali,

. 11 Here, the first two factors (the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 12 and the court’s interest in managing the docket) weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor 13 (risk of prejudice to the defendants) also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of 14 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court

15 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The 16 fourth factor (public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits) is greatly outweighed 17 by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his 18 failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 19 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 20

. Judge Baldwin’s order requiring Naylor to file his updated address with the 21 court expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with 22 this order, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” ECF No. 5 at 2. Thus, 23 Naylor had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance. ] I order that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Naylor’s failure to file an 2|| updated address in compliance with the March 9, 2021 order. 3 I order the Clerk of Court to close the case and enter judgment accordingly. 4 Dated: April 5, 2021 5 U.S. District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23