2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JESSE PINA, Case No. 3:20-cv-00259-MMD-WGC

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

12 by an individual who was formerly incarcerated at the Washoe County Detention Center. 13 (ECF No. 1-1.) On March 5, 2021, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff Jesse Pina 14 to file his updated address and a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis 15 with the Court within 30 days. (ECF No. 5.) The 30-day period has now expired, and Pina 16 has not filed his updated address, filed a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 19 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 20 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A.,

(9th Cir. 21 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute 22 an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali 23 v. Moran,

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

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal 25 for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 27 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. United States 28 Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 2 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 4 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 8 See Thompson,

; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 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 13 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 14 in filing a pleading ordered by the Court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 15 W., Inc.,

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

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Pina to file his updated address and file a non- 21 prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis with the Court within 30 days expressly 22 stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, 23 this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Thus, Pina had 24 adequate warning dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order 25 to file his updated address and a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis 26 within 30 days. 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 2|| Plaintiff Jesse Pina’s failure to file an updated address and a non-prisoner application to 3|| proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with the Court’s March 5, 2021 order. 4 The Clerk of Court is directed enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 5 DATED THIS 22" Day of April 2021. 6 —_ ( —_ 8 MIRANDA M. DU 9 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28