2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5

6 RONALD J. ALLISON, Case No. 2:22-cv-01221-CDS-EJY

7 Plaintiff ORDER

8 v.

9 CLERK CO DETENTION CENTER,

10 Defendant

11 12 Plaintiff Ronald J. Allison brings this civil-rights action under

to redress 13 constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Clark County 14 Detention Center. ECF No. 1-1. On August 12, 2022, this Court ordered Allison to file a fully 15 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before 16 September 12, 2022. ECF No. 3. The Court warned Allison that the action could be dismissed if 17 he failed to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents 18 or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline.

. That deadline expired 19 and Allison did not file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $402 20 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 21 I. DISCUSSION 22 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 23 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 24 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss 25 an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 26 King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local 27 rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 2 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 3 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 4 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab.

F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

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

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

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

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

(9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until 25 and unless Allison either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the 26 $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another 27 deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable 28 and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case 2 not receive the Court’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given 3 these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 4 II. CONCLUSION 5 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 6 favor of dismissal. 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 8 Allison’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full 9 $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s August 12, 2022, order. 10 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No 11 other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Allison wishes to pursue his claims, he 12 must file a complaint in a new case. 13 14 DATED: November 4, 2022

15

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