2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 MAURICE HOWARD, Case No. 2:22-cv-00601-GMN-VCF 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v.

6 HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON MEDICAL STAFF, 7 Defendant. 8

9 10 Plaintiff Maurice Howard brings this civil-rights action under

to 11 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High 12 Desert State Prison. (ECF No. 1-1.) On June 23, 2022, this Court ordered Howard to file 13 an amended complaint within 60 days. (ECF No. 3.) The Court warned Howard that the 14 action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline. (Id. 15 at 8.) That deadline expired and Howard did not file an amended complaint, move for an 16 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 Howard’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 23 and unless Howard files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second 24 order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often 25 only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances 26 here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Howard needs 27 additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening order. Setting 28 /// 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 Howard’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this 7 Court’s June 23, 2022, order and for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is directed 8 to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in 9 this now-closed case. If Howard wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in 10 a new case. 11 It is further ordered that Howard’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 12 No. 1) is denied as moot. 13 14 DATED THIS _1_9_ day of September 2022.

15

16 Gloria M. Navarro, Judge United States District Court 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28