1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Brick Houston, Case No. 2:21-cv-01338-GMN-DJA

4 Plaintiff ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE 5 v.

6 James Dzurenda, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 9 Plaintiff Brick Houston brings this civil-rights action under

to 10 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High 11 Desert State Prison and Southern Desert Correctional Center. (ECF No. 5). On December 12 27, 2021, this Court screened Houston’s Complaint, dismissed his claims with leave to 13 amend, and ordered him to file an amended complaint by January 26, 2022. (ECF No. 4). 14 The Court warned Houston that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an 15 amended complaint by that deadline. (Id. at 11). That deadline expired and Houston did 16 not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 17 I. Discussion 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 Los Angeles,

, 831 21 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 22 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 23 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 24 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th 25 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 26 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 27 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 28 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 1 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 2 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 3 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987)). 4 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 5 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Houston’s 6 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 7 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 8 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 10 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 11 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 12 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 13 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 14 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 15 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th 16 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 17 “implicitly accepted pursuit of last drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 18 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 19 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 20 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 21 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 23 unless Houston files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order 24 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 25 delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 26 do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Houston needs 27 additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening order. Setting 28 1 another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth 2 factor favors dismissal. 3 II. Conclusion 4 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 5 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 6 prejudice based on Houston’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this 7 Court’s December 27, 2021, order and for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is 8 directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be 9 filed in this now-closed case. If Houston wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a 10 complaint in a new case. 11 12 13 DATED THIS __2___ day of February 2022. 14

15 Gloria M. Navarro, Judge United States District Court 16

17

18

19

20

21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28