1

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 ROBERTO DURAND, Case No. 3:21-cv-00415-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 RUEBUART, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 On September 15, 2021, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff Roberto 13 Durand to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”) 14 or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before November 15, 2021. (ECF No. 3.) On 15 September 21, 2021, Durand submitted a second incomplete IFP Application that again 16 did not contain an inmate account statement for the previous six-month period. (ECF No. 17 4.) The November 15, 2021, deadline has now expired, and Durand has not filed a fully 18 complete IFP Application or paid the full $402 filing fee. 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 L.A.,

(9th Cir. 22 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to 23 prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 24 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 25 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) 26 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 27 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 1 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); 2 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for 3 failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 4 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 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 the expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 8 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to Defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 9 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 10 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 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,

(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 his failure to obey 20 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 21 requirement. See Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 22 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Durand to file a fully complete IFP Application 23 or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before November 15, 2021, expressly stated: “IT IS 24 FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file a fully complete application to proceed 25 in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action 26 on or before November 15, 2021, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice 27 2 1 || for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when Plaintiff is 2 || has all three documents needed to file a complete application to proceed in forma 3 || pauperis or pays the the full $402 filing fee.” (ECF No. 3 at 3.) Thus, Durand had adequate 4 || warning that dismissal would result from noncompliance with the Court’s order. 5 It is therefore ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice based on 6 || Durand’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 7 || the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order. (ECF No. 3.) 8 It is further ordered that Durand's pending motion (ECF No. 4) is denied as moot. 9 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and enter judgment accordingly. 10 || No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 11 DATED THIS 24" Day of November 2021.

13 MANDA M-bU 44 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28