1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MURRY S. MCKINLEY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00213-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

AARON FORD, et al., 9

10 Defendants.

11 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

1983 by Plaintiff Murry S. McKinley, a state prisoner. On August 10, 2021, the Court 13 issued an order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend and directed McKinley to 14 file an amended complaint within 30 days. (ECF No. 4.) The 30-day period has now 15 expired, and McKinley has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the 16 Court’s order. 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. 1992) 24 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 25 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 26 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 27 v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure 28 to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

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

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 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 12 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 13 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 14 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 15 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 16 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 17 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 18 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring McKinley to file an amended complaint within 30 20 days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if McKinley fails to timely file an amended 21 complaint, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.” (ECF No. 4 at 4). Thus, 22 McKinley had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with 23 the Court’s order to file an amended complaint within 30 days. 24 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 25 McKinley’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s August 26 10, 2021, order. 27 It is further ordered that McKinley’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 28 No. 1) is granted. McKinley shall not be required to pay an initial installment of the filing 4 | fee. Even though this action is dismissed, the full filing fee must still be paid pursuant to 2| 28U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 3 It is further ordered that, pursuant to

, as amended by the Prison 4| Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections will forward payments from 5 | the account of Murry S. McKinley, #92604 to the Clerk of the United States District Court, 6 | District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits (in months that the account 7 | exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of g | the Court will send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk will send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the 10 | Nevada Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702. 11 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 12 DATED THIS 20" Day of September 2021. 13 14 A GQ 15 RANE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28