1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JOSEPH MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:21-cv-00277-GMN-DJA

4 Plaintiff ORDER

5 v.

6 S. ENNIS-WRIGHT, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 9 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

10 by a prisoner incarcerated at the High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). On February 22, 11 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a signed amended complaint and a fully complete 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $402 on or before April 13 23, 2021. (ECF No. 4). The April 23, 2021 deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has 14 not filed a signed amended complaint or a fully complete application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis, paid the full $402 filing fee, 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. 23 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 24 complaint); Carey v. King,

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

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

, 28 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 1 local rules). 2 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 3 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 4 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 5 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 6 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 7 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 9 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 10 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 11 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 12 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 13 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 14 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 15 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 16 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 17 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 18 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 19 F.2d at 1424. 20 The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a signed amended complaint and a fully 21 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or 22 before April 23, 2021 expressly stated: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does 23 not file a signed amended complaint on or before April 23, 2021, this case will be subject 24 to dismissal without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new 25 case number, when Plaintiff is able to file a signed amended complaint. (ECF No. 4 at 26 3). The Court's order further stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does 27 not file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents 28 or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action on or before April 23, 2021, this case will be 1 subject to dismissal without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under 2 a new case number, when Plaintiff has all three documents needed to file a complete 3 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the the full $402 filing fee.” (Id. at 4). 4 Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from noncompliance with 5 the Court’s order to file a signed amended complaint and a fully complete application to 6 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before April 23, 2021. 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 8 based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a signed amended complaint and a fully complete 9 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with 10 this Court’s order dated February 22, 2021. (ECF No. 4). 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter 12 judgment accordingly. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 13 DATED: _A_p_r_i_l_ _3_0_,__ _2_0_2 1 14 ___ 15 GLORIA M. NAVARRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16

17

18

19

20

21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28