1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 JAMES R. ELLARS, Case No. 2:21-cv-00943-APG-NJK

5 Plaintiff, ORDER

6 v.

7 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION RECORDS,

8 Defendant.

9 10 This action began with the filing of a document entitled Request for Restoration of Credits 11 by a former prisoner. On May 20, 2021, Magistrate Judge Koppe ordered Plaintiff James R. Ellars 12 ("Ellars") to file a complaint or petition and an application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non- 13 inmate or pay the full filing fee of $402 on or before June 21, 2021. (ECF No. 3). On June 7, 14 2021 and June 10, 2021, this Court received two notices of returned mail. (ECF Nos. 4, 5). The 15 June 21, 2021 deadline has now expired, and Ellars has not filed a complaint or petition, an 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-inmate, paid the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise 17 responded to the Court’s order. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 19 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 20 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

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

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

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

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 26 dismissal 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 dismissal 28 for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

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

; 7 Henderson,

; Malone,

; Ferdik,

; Ghazali, 8

. 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 dismissal, 12 since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 13 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th 14 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is 15 greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning 16 to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the 17 “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

- 18 33; Henderson,

. Judge Koppe's order expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER 19 ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file a complaint or petition and a fully complete application 20 to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-inmate or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action on 21 or before June 21, 2021, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice." (ECF No. 3 at 22 3). Thus, Ellars had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with 23 Judge Koppe's order. 24 I THEREFORE ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff 25 James R. Ellar's failure to file a complaint or petition and an application to proceed in forma 26 pauperis by a non-inmate or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order 27 dated May 20, 2021. 28 / / / 1 I FURTHER ORDER that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close 2 this case. No additional documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 3 DATED: _ July 9, 2021

9 ANDREW P. GORDON 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-