Harris v. United States Marshals

District Court, D. Nevada

Harris v. United States Marshals

Trial Court Opinion

2 4 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 woke ANTOINE W. HARRIS, Case No.: 3:19-CV-00049-RCJ-WGC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 11 Vv. 12| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al,, 13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court issued its Order Adopting and Accepting Report and Recommendation 16| of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 26), notifying Harris that he shall have 90 17| days from February 24, 2021, to file a motion for leave to amend and proposed amended 18 | complaint or file a properly supported and complete motion for the Court to issue a Rule 19| 45 subpoena duces tecum. To date, Harris has failed to comply with the Court’s Order 20| (ECF No. 26). 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and □□□□□□ the 22| 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 24| (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. 26| See Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53-54

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 27 | 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

1| F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring 2| pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 3| F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson 4| v. Duncan,

779 F.2d 1421, 1424

(Sth Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and | failure to comply with local rules). 6 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 7 | acourt order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 8| (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 9| 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. 11| 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

. 13 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 17 | 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 20 | of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court's warning to a party that his failure to obey 21| 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 24| 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 28 | before Tuesday, May 25, 2021.

~2-

1 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 3| 24,2021, (ECF No. 26). 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 5 | accordingly and close the case. 6 DATED this 23 day of June, 2021. _ as

8 ROBERT C. JONES 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Bh

Reference

Status
Unknown