1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 RONALD J. ALLISON, Case No. 2:21-cv-01324-APG-DJA

4 Plaintiff ORDER

v. 5 CCDC, 6 Defendant

7 8 9 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

by a 10 county inmate. On July 16, 2021, Magistrate Judge Albregts ordered plaintiff Ronald J. Allison 11 to file a complaint in compliance with Local Special Rule 2-1 (LSR 2-1) and a fully complete 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $402 by September 14, 13 2021. ECF No. 3 at 3. On July 26, 2021, the order was returned as undeliverable from the Clark 14 County Detention Center. ECF No. 5. Allison has failed to apprise the court of his updated 15 address.1 The September 14, 2021 deadline has now expired, and Allison has not submitted a 16 complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1, filed a fully complete application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis, paid the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise responded to the order. 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. 20

21 1 Under Local Rule of Practice IA 3-1, a “pro se party must immediately file with the court written notification of any change of mailing address, email address, telephone number, or 22 facsimile number. The notification must include proof of service on each opposing party or the party’s attorney. Failure to comply with this rule may result in the dismissal of the action, entry 23 of default judgment, or other sanctions as deemed appropriate by the court.” 1 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 2 dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 3 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53- 4 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

5

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order 6 requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) 7 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court 8 apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

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

, 1424 10 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 11 rules). 12 In determining whether to dismiss an action for such reasons, the court must consider 13 several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 14 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

15 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 16 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

; 17 Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 18 Here, the first two factors (the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 19 and my interest in managing the docket) weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor (risk of 20 prejudice to the defendants) also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 21 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 22 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 23 factor (public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits) is greatly outweighed by the 1}| factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, F.2d at 1424. Judge Albregts’ order expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file a complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1 on or before September 14, 2021, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when Plaintiff is able to file a complaint in compliance with 8]| LSR 2-1.” Additionally, Judge Albregts’ order stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if 9|| Plaintiff does not file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action on or before September 14, 2021, this 11]| case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when Plaintiff has all three documents needed to file a complete 13} application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the the full $402 filing fee.” Thus, Allison had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with Judge Albregts’ 15]| order. 16 I THEREFORE ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiff 17|| Ronald J. Allison's failure to file a complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1 and file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance 19]| with this court’s order dated July 16, 2021. 20 I FURTHER ORDER the Clerk of Court to close the case and enter judgment accordingly. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 22 DATED: September 24, 2021. 23 OO ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE