2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 SAM YASSIN, Case No. 2:22-cv-00446-GMN-DJA

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 6 NEVADA STATE, et al., 7 Defendants. 8

9 10 Pro se Plaintiff Sam Yassin began this action with a document that does not comply 11 with Local Special Rule 2-1’s requirements for civil complaints, and he failed to either file 12 a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) or pay the full $402 filing 13 fee for a civil action. (ECF No. 1). So on March 17, 2022, the Court directed Yassin to file 14 a complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1 and to either pay the full filing fee or properly 15 apply to proceed IFP by May 16, 2022. (ECF No. 3). That deadline passed without any 16 filing by Yassin. 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,

, 1440–41 (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 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 dismissing Yassin’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 less 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). This action cannot realistically proceed until Yassin files 23 a complaint that substantially complies with LSR 2-1. And this Court cannot operate 24 without collecting reasonable fees, so this action cannot proceed until Yassin either files 25 a fully complete IFP application or pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action. The only 26 alternative to dismissal here is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the 27 reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and 28 squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this 2 that he did not receive the Court’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 3 alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 4 II. CONCLUSION 5 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 6 favor dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice 7 based on Yassin’s failure to file a complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1 and either file a 8 fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in 9 compliance with this Court’s March 17, 2022, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter 10 judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now- 11 closed case. If Yassin wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 12 13 DATED THIS 6 day of August, 2022.

14

15 ___ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28