2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JUSTIN KURPIEL, Case No. 2:22-cv-00768-GMN-DJA 4 Plaintiff, DISMISSAL ORDER 5 v.

6 NYE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, et al., 7 Defendants. 8

9 10 Plaintiff Justin Kurpiel brings this civil-rights action under

to 11 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at the Nye 12 County Detention Center. (ECF No. 8). On July 25, 2022, this Court ordered Kurpiel to 13 file an amended complaint by August 24, 2022. (ECF No. 7). The Court warned Kurpiel 14 that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that 15 deadline. (Id. at 9). That deadline expired and Kurpiel did not file an amended complaint, 16 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 2 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 3 Malone,

). 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 Kurpiel’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). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 23 unless Kurpiel files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order 24 setting another deadline. However, Kurpiel is no longer in custody at the Nye County 25 Detention Center, and he did not update his current address with the Court.1 (See ECF 26 1 Pursuant to Nevada Local Rule of Practice IA 3-1, a “pro se party must 27 immediately file with the court written notification of any change of mailing address, email address, telephone number, or facsimile number. The notification must include proof of 28 service on each opposing party or the party’s attorney. Failure to comply with this rule may result in the dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as 2 no longer there to await mail to be returned as undeliverable will only delay the inevitable 3 and squander the Court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 4 alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 5 II. CONCLUSION 6 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 7 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 8 prejudice based on Kurpiel’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this 9 Court’s July 25, 2022, order and for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is directed 10 to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in 11 this now-closed case. If Kurpiel wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a 12 new case. 13 14 DATED THIS _2_9_ day of August 2022.

15

16 ___ Gloria M. Navarro, Judge 17 United States District Court

18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28