1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 ERIN WARE, Case No. 3:20-CV-00136-RCJ-WGC

9 Plaintiff ORDER

10 v.

11 RN LINDSEY,

12 Defendants

13 14 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

1983 by Plaintiff, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Nevada Department of 16 Corrections (NDOC). On April 29, 2021, the Court issued an order dismissing the 17 complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 18 30 days. (ECF NO. 3). The 30-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an 19 amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. District courts have 20 the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may 21 impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. 22 Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 23 dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 24 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 25

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); 26 Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for 27 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856

, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local 1 rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 2 Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with 3 court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (affirming 4 dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 5 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to 6 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several 7 factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 8 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 9 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 10 alternatives. See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; 11 Malone,

; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 12 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 13 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 14 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also 15 weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 16 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. 17 See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public 18 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors 19 in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his 20 failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 21 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; 22 Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended 23 complaint within 30 days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff 24 chooses to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies of his complaint, as 25 outlined in this order, Plaintiff must file the amended complaint within 30 days from the 26 date of entry of this order. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that, if Plaintiff fails to file 27 an amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be 28 dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 3). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s 2 | order to file an amended complaint within 30 days. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH 4 | PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with 5 | this Court’s April 29, 2021, order and for failure to state a claim. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma 7 | pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial 8 | installment of the filing fee. Even though this action is dismissed, the full filing fee must still be paid pursuant to

(b)(2). 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to

, as amended by 11 the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections will forward 12 | payments from the account of ERIN WARE, #1017483 to the Clerk of the United States 13 | District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of the Court will send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the 16 | Clerk’s Office. The Clerk will send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of 17| Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will close this case and enter 20 | judgment accordingly. 21 22 DATED this 25" day of June, 2021. 23 Co 24 ROBERTC.UPNES 25 UNITED STAZES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28

-3-