Harris v. United States Marshals

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA woke

ANTOINE W. HARRIS, Case No.: 3:19-CV-00049-RCJ-WGC Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL Vv.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al,,

Defendants.

The Court issued its Order Adopting and Accepting Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 26), notifying Harris that he shall have 90 days from February 24, 2021, to file a motion for leave to amend and proposed amended complaint or file a properly supported and complete motion for the Court to issue a Rule subpoena duces tecum. To date, Harris has failed to comply with the Court’s Order (ECF No. 26).

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and □□□□□□ the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal’ of acase. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (Sth Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and | failure to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey acourt order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 12} Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, | weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs 16] in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See 18) Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor ~ public policy | favoring disposition of cases on their merits — is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court's warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” | requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 | F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, expressly stated: “It is further ordered that if Plaintiff fails to move to amend or file a motion for issuance of Rule 45 subpoena within 90 days, this action will be dismissed, and the case | will be closed. (ECF No. 26). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would | result from his noncompliance with the Court's order to file an amended complaint on or before Tuesday, May 25, 2021.

~2-

IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED based on Plaintiffs failure to file | anamended complaint with the Court in compliance with this Court's Order filed February 24,2021, (ECF No. 26).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

DATED this 23 day of June, 2021. _ as

ROBERT C. JONES

United States District Judge

Bh