Peterson v. Minev
Peterson v. Minev
Trial Court Opinion
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 BRANDEN PETERSON, Case No. 3:21-cv-00108-MMD-WGC
7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 MICHEAL MINEV, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under
42 U.S.C. § 198312 by Plaintiff Branden Peterson, a former state inmate. On September 23, 2021, the Court 13 issued an order screening Peterson’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 5 (“FAC”)). (ECF 14 No. 7.) The screening order dismissed the FAC with leave to amend and directed 15 Peterson to file a second amended complaint within 30 days. (Id. at 8.) The 30-day period 16 has now expired, and Peterson has not filed a second amended complaint or otherwise 17 responded to the Court’s order. 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 19 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 20 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A.,
782 F.2d 829, 831(9th Cir. 21 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to 22 prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See 23 Ghazali v. Moran,
46 F.3d 52, 53-54(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 24 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61(9th Cir. 1992) 25 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 26 Carey v. King,
856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 27 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone 28 v. United States Postal Serv.,
833 F.2d 128, 130(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for 2 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 4 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to Defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 8 See Thompson,
782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone,
833 F.2d at 9130; Ferdik,
963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali,
46 F.3d at 53. 10 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 11 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 12 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 13 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 14 in filing a pleading ordered by the Court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air
15 W., 542F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring disposition 16 of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal 17 discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his or her failure to obey the 18 court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 19 requirement. Ferdik,
963 F.2d at 1262; Malone,
833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson,
779 F.2d 20 at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Peterson to file a second amended complaint within 21 30 days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Peterson fails to file a second 22 amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be 23 dismissed without prejudice.” (ECF No. 7 at 8.) Thus, Peterson had adequate warning 24 that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to file a second 25 amended complaint within 30 days. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 2|| Plaintiff Branden Peterson’s failure to file a second amended complaint in compliance 3|| with this Court’s September 23, 2021 order. 4 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 5 DATED THIS 9" Day of November 2021. 6 — 7 ( ( f
3 / MIRANDA M. DU 9 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown