2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 KEVIN CLAUSEN, Case No. 2:22-cv-00279-ART-NJK 6 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING 7 v. CASE 8 STATE OF NEVADA, et al. 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Kevin Clausen brings this lawsuit to redress constitutional 12 violations that he claims to have suffered while he was incarcerated at High 13 Desert State Prison. On August 11, 2022, this Court instructed Clausen to file 14 an amended complaint and either pay the $402 filing fee for a civil action or 15 properly apply to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) by September 12, 2022. (ECF 16 No. 8). That deadline expired and Clausen has not filed an amended complaint 17 and either paid the filing fee or filed an IFP application. Nor has Clausen 18 otherwise responded to the Court’s August 11, 2022, order. 19 The law permits a district court to dismiss an action based on a party’s 20 failure to comply with a court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260– 21 61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 22 amendment of complaint). In determining whether to dismiss an action on this 23 ground, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 24 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 25 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 26 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. In re 27 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) 28 (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987)). 2 litigation and the court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 3 dismissing the plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 4 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 5 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 6 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 7 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 8 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 9 The fifth factor requires the court to consider whether less drastic 10 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 11 court’s need to consider dismissal. Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 12 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before the 13 party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan 14 v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust 15 every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 16 explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed until and unless 18 Clausen files an amended complaint, and this Court cannot operate without 19 collecting reasonable fees, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 20 another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 21 delays the inevitable and squanders finite resources along the way. The 22 circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is 23 no indication that Clausen needs additional time or did not receive the Court’s 24 order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 25 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 26 27 28 1 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 2 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 3 || dismissed for failure to follow a court order. 4 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this 5 || case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 6 7 DATED THIS 21st day of September 2022. 8 9 10 Aras lost 1d 11 ANNER.TRAUM 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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