2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JOHN MCNAIR, Case No. 3:21-cv-00155-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CHARLES DANIELS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

12 by Plaintiff John McNair, a former state prisoner. (ECF No. 1-1.) On September 16, 2021, 13 this Court issued an order directing McNair to file his updated address with this Court by 14 October 16, 2021. (ECF No. 3.) The deadline has now expired, and McNair has not filed 15 his updated address or otherwise 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); 26 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

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

(9th Cir. 28 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 2 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 3 (1) the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to 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 in favor of 15 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. See Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 18 F.2d at 1424. 19 The Court’s order requiring McNair to file his updated address with the Court within 20 thirty (30) days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply 21 with this order, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” (ECF No. 3 at 1.) 22 Thus, McNair had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance 23 with the Court’s order. 24 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 25 McNair’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s September 16, 26 2021, order. (ECF No. 3.) 27 It is further ordered that McNair’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 28 No. 1) is denied as moot. 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and enter judgment accordingly. 2 DATED THIS 28" Day of October 2021. 3 ALR MIRANDA M. DU 5 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 28