1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 CRAIG ANDERSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-01601-APG-BNW 3 Plaintiff ORDER 4 v. 5 LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE, 6 Defendant 7

8 On September 1, 2021, Magistrate Judge Weksler ordered plaintiff Craig Anderson to file 9 a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $402 by 10 September 23, 2021. ECF No. 3. The September 23, 2021 deadline has now expired, and 11 Anderson has not filed a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full 12 $402 filing fee, or otherwise responded to the order. 13 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 14 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 15 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 16 dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 17 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53- 18 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 19

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order 20 requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) 21 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court 22 apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 23 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1424 1 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 2 rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for such reasons, the court must consider 4 several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s

5 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 6 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 7 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

; 8 Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

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

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 14 factor (public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits) is greatly outweighed by the

15 factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his 16 failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 17 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 18

. Judge Weksler’s order expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by 19 September 23, 2021, Plaintiff must either: (1) file a complete application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis in compliance with

(a)(1) and LRS 1-1; or (2) pay the full $402 filing 21 fee for a civil action, which includes the $350 filing fee and the $52 administrative fee. Plaintiff 22 is advised that failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this case be 23 1}|dismissed.” Thus, Anderson had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with Judge Weksler’s order. 3 I THEREFORE ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiff Craig Anderson’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 5|| the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this court’s order. 6 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. 8 DATED: November 5, 2021. 9 JIE. 10 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23