1

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 RACHEL MARIE WHITTED, Case No. 3:21-cv-00087-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 NORTHERN NEVADA DEPARTMENT 9 OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. 10

11 12 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

13 by an inmate incarcerated at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”). On 14 February 22, 2021, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff Rachel Whitted’s 15 application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), without prejudice, because the 16 application was incomplete. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) The Court ordered Whitted to file a complete 17 IFP application or pay the full filing fee of $402.00 on or before April 23, 2021. (Id. at 2.) 18 On March 9, 2021, Whitted submitted a statement regarding her financial 19 certificate and filed a financial certificate (not on the Court’s approved form) and an inmate 20 account statement. (ECF No. 4.) Thereafter, on April 12, 2021, Whitted filed a financial 21 certificate on the Court’s approved form. (ECF No. 5.) The Court notes that even if all of 22 Whitted’s individual IFP filings (ECF Nos. 1, 4, 5) are considered, Whitted has still not 23 submitted page 3—the signed declaration page—of her IFP application. Whitted therefore 24 has not filed a fully complete IFP application by the April 23, 2021 deadline, and the 25 deadline has now expired. 26 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 27 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 1 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to 2 prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See 3 Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 4 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) 5 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 6 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 7 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 8 v. United States Postal Serv.,

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

(9th Cir. 10 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 11 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 12 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 13 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 14 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to Defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 15 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 16 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 18 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 19 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 20 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 21 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 22 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air W., 23

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring disposition of 24 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed 25 herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his or her failure to obey the court’s order 26 will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 27 F.2d at 1262; Malone,

; Henderson,

. The Court’s 28 order requiring Whitted to file another IFP application or pay the full $402.00 filing fee on or before April 23, 2021 expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff 2| does not file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402.00 filing fee for a civil action on or before April 23, 2021, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with 5 | the Court, under a new case number, when Plaintiff has all three documents needed to 6 | file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the the full $402.00 filing 7| fee.” (ECF No. 3 at 3 (emphasis in original).) Whitted thus had adequate warning that dismissal would result from noncompliance with the Court’s order to file another IFP 9| application or pay the full $402.00 filing fee on or before April 23, 2021. 10 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 11 | Plaintiff Whitted’s failure to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 12 | the full $402.00 filing fee in compliance with the Court’s February 22, 2021 order (ECF 13} No. 3). 14 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and will close this case. No other 15 | documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 16 DATED THIS 3% Day of May 2021. 17 he MIRANDA MOU 19 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28