1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 JOEY A. GARCIA, Case No. 3:20-cv-00522-RCJ-WGC

4 Plaintiff, Order

5 v.

6 WASHOE COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY, 7 Defendant. 8 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

by 9 Plaintiff Joey A. Garcia, who was a pre-trial detainee when he submitted this matter. On 10 September 8, 2021, the Court granted Garcia leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and issued a 11 screening order pursuant to

(e) dismissing some claims with prejudice and some 12 claims with leave to amend. ECF No. 9. The Court granted Garcia leave to file an amended 13 complaint within 30 days.

The 30-day period to file an amended complaint has now expired 14 and Garcia has not filed an amended complaint. 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and, in the exercise of that 16 power, may dismiss a case where appropriate. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 17

(9th Cir. 1986. A party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court 18 order, or failure to comply with local rules may warrant dismissal of an action with prejudice. See 19 Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with 20 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for 21 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

, 22 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se 23 plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th 24

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply 2 with local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 4 order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s

5 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 6 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 7 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See Thompson,

; 8 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone,

; Ferdik,

; Ghazali, 9

. 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 dismissal, 13 since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 14 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th

15 Cir. 1976). 16 The fourth factor—public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly 17 outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Further, this factor is mitigated 18 in this matter because § 1915 requires that, before docketing a complaint filed in forma pauperis, 19 the Court must identify and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 20 upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 21 such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 1915. Similarly, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a 22 federal court must dismiss, at any time, an incarcerated person’s claim if the claim “is frivolous or 23 malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a

24 defendant who is immune from such relief.”

(e)(2). ] In the Screening Order, the Court found that Garcia failed to properly plead a cognizable 2 || claim upon which relief could be granted in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3|| ECF No. 9 at 5-9. The Court noted further noted the law relevant to the claims Garcia appeared to 4|| be asserting. /d. 5 Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to file an amended complaint will result 6 || in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor that the court consider less drastic alternatives. Ferdik, 963 7|| F.2d at 1262; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order 8 || requiring that Garcia file an amended complaint within thirty days expressly stated: “If Plaintiff 9|| chooses to file a First Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies, as outlined in this order, Plaintiff must file the amended complaint within 30 days from the date of this order. If Plaintiff 11 |) does not file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.” ECF No. 9 at 10. Thus, Garcia had 13 || adequate warning that dismissal would result from his failure to prosecute this matter by filing an amended complaint within the time provided by the Court. Therefore, 15 THE COURT ORDERS that this action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 17 THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 18 || accordingly and close this case. 19 THE COURT FURTHER CERTIFIES that any in forma pauperis appeal from this order 20 || would not be taken “in good faith” under

(a)(3). 21 22|| DATED THIS 14th day of January, 2022. 23 : Robert C. Jones 24 United States rict Judge 25