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

4 IVAN LEE MATTHEWS, II, Case No. 2:21-cv-01239-GMN-DJA

5 Plaintiff, ORDER

6 v.

7 BOARD OF STATE PRISON COMMISSIONERS, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

1983 by a former state prisoner. On July 7, 2021, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully 12 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-inmate or pay the full filing 13 fee of $402 on or before August 9, 2021. (ECF No. 3). On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed 14 an incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-inmate. (ECF No. 4). 15 The August 9, 2021 deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a fully complete 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-inmate or paid the full $402 filing fee. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 18 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 19 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 20 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 21 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 22 See Ghazali v. Moran,

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

(9th Cir. 24 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 25 complaint); Carey v. King,

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

, 1 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 2 local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 4 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 8 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 10 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 11 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 12 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 13 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 14 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 15 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 16 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 17 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 18 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 19 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 20 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a fully complete application to 21 proceed in forma pauperis by a non-inmate or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before 22 August 9, 2021 expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not 23 timely comply with this order, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for 24 Plaintiff to file a new case with the Court when Plaintiff is either able to file a fully complete 25 application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-inmate or pays the full $402 filing fee." 26 (ECF No. 3 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from 27 his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file a fully complete application to proceed in 28 forma pauperis by a non-inmate or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before August 9, 2021. 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 2 based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non- 3 inmate or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated July 7, 4 2021. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's incomplete application (ECF No. 4) is 6 denied as moot. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 8 accordingly and close this case. No additional documents will be filed in this closed case. 9 DATED: __A_u_g_u_s_t_ _1_8_,_ _2_0__2_1__ 10

11 GLORIA M. NAVARRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12

13

14

15

16

17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28