1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 ***

6 RACHEL MARIE WHITTED, Case No. 3:21-cv-00301-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 NNCC MAIL ROOM, 9 Defendant.

10 11 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

12 by a former state prisoner. On August 18, 2021, this Court issued an order directing 13 Plaintiff to file her updated address with this Court by September 17, 2021. (ECF No. 3.) 14 The deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed her updated address or otherwise 15 responded to the Court’s order. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 17 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 18 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 19 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 20 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 21 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 22 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) 23 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 24 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 25 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 26 v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure 27 to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

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

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 8 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 9 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 10 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 11 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 12 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 13 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 14 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors weighing in favor 15 of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 16 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 17 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file her updated address with the Court by 19 September 17, 2021, expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to timely 20 comply with this order, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” (ECF No. 21 3 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from her 22 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file her updated address by September 17, 2021. 23 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 24 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s August 18, 25 2021, order. 26 /// 27 /// 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

2 DATED THIS 20th Day of September 2021. 3 4

5 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27