1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 DARRELL CONNERS, Case No. 2:20-cv-02111-GMN-DJA

5 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 6 JERRY HOWELL, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 I. DISCUSSION 10 This action began with an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a pro se 11 civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

by a state prisoner. (ECF No. 1, 12 1-1.) On June 30, 2021, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with 13 leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF 14 No. 5.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended 15 complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 16 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. (ECF No. 1). Based 17 on the information regarding Plaintiff’s financial status, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not 18 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 20 $350.00 filing fee when he has funds available. 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 22 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 23 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 24 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 25 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 26 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 27 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 28 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 1 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 2 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 3 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 4 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 5 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 6 local rules). 7 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 8 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 9 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 10 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 11 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 12 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 14 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 15 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 16 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 17 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 18 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 19 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 20 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 21 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 22 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 23 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 24 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 25 thirty days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff chooses not to file an 26 amended complaint curing the stated deficiencies of the complaint, this action will be 27 dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 5 at 8.) Thus, Plaintiff had 28 /// 1 adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s 2 order to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 3 II. CONCLUSION 4 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 5 No. 1) is granted. Plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial installment of the filing 6 fee. In the event that this action is dismissed, the full filing fee must still be paid pursuant 7 to

(b)(2). 8 It is further ordered that the movant herein is permitted to maintain this action to 9 conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the 10 giving of security therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall 11 not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense. 12 It is further ordered that Pursuant to

, as amended by the Prison 13 Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections will forward payments from 14 the account of Darrell Conners, #1100157 to the Clerk of the United States District Court, 15 District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits (in months that the account 16 exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of 17 the Court will send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. The 18 Clerk will send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the 19 Nevada Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702. 20 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s 21 failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s June 30, 2021, order. 22 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 23 24 DATED THIS _1_9__ day of August 2021. 25

26 Gloria M. Navarro, Judge United States District Court 27 28