1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 TYRONE MCDOUGALD, Case No. 2:20-cv-00981-RFB-VCF 4 Plaintiff ORDER 5 v.

6 T. NIELSON et al., Defendants 7 8 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under

9 by a former state prisoner. On October 19, 2021, this Court issued an order directing 10 Plaintiff to file his updated address with this Court by November 18, 2021. (ECF No. 11.) The deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise 11 responded to the Court’s order.1 12 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 13 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 14 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 15 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 16 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 17 See Ghazali v. Moran,

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

(9th Cir. 19 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 20 complaint); Carey v. King,

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

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

, 24 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 25 local rules). 26

27 1 Plaintiff also failed to respond to this Court’s previous order directing him to contact a deputy court clerk to discuss his participation in an inmate early mediation conference. 1 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 2 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 3 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 5 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 6 See Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 7 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 8 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 9 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 10 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 11 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 12 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 13 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 14 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 15 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 16 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 17 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file his updated address with the 18 Court by November 18, 2021, expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails 19 to timely comply with this order, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” 20 (ECF No. 11.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 21 noncompliance with the Court’s order to file his updated address by November 18, 2021. 22 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 23 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s October 19, 24 2021, order. 25 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close the case and enter judgment 26 accordingly. 27 It is further ordered that Plaintiff may move to reopen this case and vacate the judgment by filing a motion for reconsideration of this order. In this motion, Plaintiff would 1|| need to explain the circumstances which led to him not being able to update his address 2\| as directed by the Court. If the Court finds there is good cause or a reasonable explanation for the failure to update the address, the Court will reopen the case and 4|| vacate the judgment. DATED THIS 20" day of May 2022. .

8 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28