Whitted v. Laura
Whitted v. Laura
Trial Court Opinion
1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 RACHEL MARIE WHITTED, Case No. 3:21-cv-00216-LRH-WGC
7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 LAURA, 9 Defendant. 10 11 I. DISCUSSION 12 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under
42 U.S.C. § 198313 by a former state prisoner. On August 17, 2021, this Court issued an order directing 14 Plaintiff Rachel Marie Whitted to file her updated address and a non-prisoner application 15 to proceed in forma pauperis with this Court by September 17, 2021. (ECF No. 5.) It is 16 now a week past the September 17, 2021, deadline, and Whitted has not filed her updated 17 address, filed a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise 18 responded to the Court’s order. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,
782 F.2d 829, 831 22 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 23 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 24 See Ghazali v. Moran,
46 F.3d 52, 53-54(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 25 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61(9th Cir. 26 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 27 complaint); Carey v. King,
856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 1 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,
833 F.2d 128, 130(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 2 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,
779 F.2d 1421, 3 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 4 local rules). 5 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 6 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 7 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 8 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 9 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 10 See Thompson,
782 F.2d at 831; Henderson,
779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone,
833 F.2d at 11130; Ferdik,
963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali,
46 F.3d at 53. 12 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 13 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 14 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 15 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 16 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 17 West,
542 F.2d 522, 524(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 18 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 19 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that her failure to obey 20 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 21 requirement. Ferdik,
963 F.2d at 1262; Malone,
833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 22 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Whitted to file her updated address and file a 23 non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis with the Court by September 17, 24 2021, expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if [Whitted] fails to timely 25 comply with this order, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” (ECF No. 26 6 at 2.) Thus, Whitted had adequate warning that dismissal would result from her 27 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file her updated address and a non-prisoner Ul. CONCLUSION 2 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 3|| Whitted’s failure to file an updated address and a non-prisoner application to proceed in 4|| forma pauperis in compliance with this Court’s August 17, 2021, order. 5 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly. 7 DATED THIS 30‘ day of September 2021. / -
9 UnitedStates Distfict Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown