2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JESSE BAILEY, IV, Case No. 3:20-cv-00123-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ELOY A. ITUARTE, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

12 by Jesse Bailey, IV, a former county pretrial detainee. On March 19, 2021, the Court 13 issued an order directing Bailey to file his updated address on or before April 16, 2021. 14 (ECF No. 5.) The deadline has now expired, and Bailey has not filed his updated address 15 or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 17 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 18 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 19 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 20 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 21 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 22 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) 23 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 24 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 25 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 26 v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure 27 to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) 28 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 2 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 3 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 5 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 6 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 8 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 9 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 10 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 11 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 12 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 13 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 14 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 15 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 16 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 17 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Bailey to file his updated address with the Court on 19 or before April 16, 2021, expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff 20 fails to timely comply with this order, this case will be subject to dismissal without 21 prejudice.” (ECF No. 5.) Thus, Bailey had adequate warning that dismissal would result 22 from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address on or before 23 April 16, 2021. 24 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 25 Bailey’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s March 19, 2021, 26 order. 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) 2|| and the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-2) are denied as moot. 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 4 DATED THIS 21* Day of April 2021. 5 □□ (GR - 7 MIRANDA M. DU 3 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28