1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 Case No. 3:20-cv-00276-MMD-CLB 6 BRANDON DEMARLO MONGHUR, ORDER 7 Plaintiff, v. 8 NEVADA DIVISION OF PAROLE AND 9 PROBATION,

10 Defendant.

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

13 by a former state prisoner. On May 17, 2021, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff 14 Brandon Demarlo Monghur to file his updated address with the Court by June 18, 2021 15 (ECF No. 3.) The deadline has now expired, and Monghur has not filed his updated 16 address or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 18 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . 19 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A.,

(9th 20 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to 21 prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules 22 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 23 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir 24 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 25 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 26 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 27 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 1 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 2 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 West,

(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 failure to obey 18 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 19 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 20 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Monghur to file his updated address with the 21 Court by June 18, 2021, expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to 22 timely comply with this order, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” 23 (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Thus, Monghur had adequate warning that dismissal would result from 24 his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address by June 18, 2021. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on || Monghur's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s May 17, 2021, order. 4 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment accordingly. 6 DATED THIS 22" Day of June 2021.

8 KMRANDA 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