1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Case No.: 2:20-cv-02318-JAD-EJY Francis Raymond Edwards, 5 Plaintiff 6 Order Dismissing and Closing Case v. 7 J. Dzurenda, et al., 8 Defendants 9 10 Plaintiff Francis Raymond Edwards brings this civil-rights case under § 1983 for events 11 he alleges occurred during his incarceration at Northern Nevada Correctional Center, Lovelock 12 Correctional Center, and High Desert State Prison.1 On June 30, 2021, I ordered Edwards to file 13 his updated address and a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as a 14 first amended complaint, by September 1, 2021.2 I expressly warned him that his failure to 15 timely comply with the order would result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice.3 The 16 deadline has passed, and Edwards has not filed his updated address, a non-prisoner application to 17 proceed in forma pauperis, or a first-amended complaint. 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.4 A 20 court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 21 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.5 In determining whether to

22 1 ECF No. 1 (complaint). 23

24 2 ECF No. 5 (order).

25 3 Id.

26 4 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 27 5 See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with 28 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 1 1 dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 2 local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 3 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 4 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 5 availability of less drastic alternatives.6 6 I find that the first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving the 7 litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissing this case. 8 The risk-of-prejudice factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 9 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 10 prosecuting an action.7 The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 11 dismissal, and a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in 12 dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement.8 Edwards was warned that his 13 case would be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to file his updated address, a non-prisoner 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis, and a first-amended complaint by September 1, 2021.9 15 So, Edwards had adequate warning that his failure to file his updated address, a non-prisoner 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis, and a first-amended complaint by the deadline would 17 result in this case’s dismissal. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without 19 prejudice based on Edwards’s failure to file his updated address, a non-prisoner application to 20 21 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

, 1440– 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 22 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

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

, 23 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 24 6 Thompson,

; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; Malone,

; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61; Ghazali,

. 25 7 See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). 26

27 8 Ferdik,

; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson,

.

28 9 ECF No. 5 (order). 2 1 || proceed in forma pauperis, and a first-amended complaint in compliance with this court’s June 2 2021, order; and 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS 4|| CASE. Tey, = USS. District Judge Jennifer/A. Dorsey 6 Dated: September 14, 2021 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28