2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 DEREK RODNEY GOFF, Case No. 3:22-cv-00342-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 COUNTY OF ELKO, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Plaintiff Derek Rodney Goff brings this civil-rights action under

13 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at the 14 Elko County Jail. (ECF No. 1-1.) On August 23, 2022, the Court ordered Goff to update 15 his address by September 23, 2022. (ECF No. 5.) That deadline expired without an 16 updated address from Goff, and his mail from the Court is being returned as 17 undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 22 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 23 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 24 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 25 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th 26 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 27 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 28 2 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 3 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 4 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 5 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987)). 6 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 7 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Goff’s 8 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendants, also weighs in favor of 9 dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable 10 delay in filing a pleading ordered by the Court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. 11 Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring 12 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring 13 dismissal. 14 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 15 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 16 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 17 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 18 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th 19 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 20 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 21 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 22 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 23 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 24 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed without 26 the ability for the Court and Defendants to send Goff case-related documents, filings, and 27 orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But without 28 an updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach Goff is low, 1 || so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the Court’s 2 || finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 3 || circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. || Ill. CONCLUSION 5 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 6 || weigh in favor of dismissal. 7 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 8 || Goff’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with the Court’s August 23, 2022, 9 || order. 10 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 11 || No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Goff wishes to pursue his 12 || claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and provide the Court with his current 13 || address. 14 DATED THIS 3% Day of October 2022. 15

17 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28