1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 HARLAN ISKE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00424-RCJ-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 6 BELLINGER, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 This action began with an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a pro se 10 civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

by a state prisoner. (ECF Nos. 11 1, 1-1.). On April 29, 2021, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint with leave 12 to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 13 5 at 7). The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended 14 complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 15 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. (ECF No. 1). Based 16 on the information regarding Plaintiff’s financial status, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not 17 able to pay an initial installment payment toward the full filing fee pursuant to

1915. Plaintiff will, however, be required to make monthly payments toward the full 19 $350.00 filing fee when he has funds available. 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 21 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 22 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 23 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 24 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 25 See Ghazali v. Moran,

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

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

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

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

, 4 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 5 local rules). 6 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 7 a court 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 10 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 11 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 13 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 14 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 15 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 16 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 17 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 18 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 19 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 20 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” 22 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 23 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 24 thirty days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended 25 complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be dismissed 26 without prejudice.” (ECF No. 5 at 7). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal 27 would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint 1 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted. Plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial installment of the filing 3|| fee. In the event that this action is dismissed, the full filing fee must still be paid pursuant 4}| to

(b)(2). 5 It is further ordered that the movant herein is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of security therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall || not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense. 9 It is further ordered that Pursuant to

, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections will forward payments from the account of Harlan Iske, #96489 to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District 12|| 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 Clerk’s Office. The Clerk will 15|| send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702. 17 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 18|| Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s April 29, 2021, order. 20 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 21 22 DATED THIS 9th day of August, 2021. 23 24 UMITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28