1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 JEREMY JOHN-JASON CUMMINGS, Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-ART-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 WASHOE COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, 8 Defendant. 9 10 11 Plaintiff Jeremy John-Jason Cummings brings this civil-rights action 12 under

to redress constitutional violations that he claims he 13 suffered while incarcerated at Washoe County Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1 at 14 1.) On October 13, 2022, this Court ordered Cummings to file an amended 15 complaint within 30 days. (ECF No. 4 at 6.) The Court warned Cummings that 16 the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that 17 deadline. (Id. at 6.) That deadline expired and Cummings did not file an amended 18 complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 19 DISCUSSION 20 Federal District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and 21 “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 22 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 23 Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 24 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 25 King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 26 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 27 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

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

, 6 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

). 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 8 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 9 dismissing Cummings’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 10 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 11 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 12 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 13 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 14 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 15 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 16 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 17 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 18 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 19 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 20 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 21 “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted 22 pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as 23 satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 24 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 25 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 26 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 27 Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because this action 28 cannot realistically proceed until and unless Cummings files an amended 1 || complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. 2 || But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the 3 || inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do 4 || not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Cummings 5 || needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening 6 || order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 7 || circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 8 || II. CONCLUSION 9 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 10 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 11 || dismissed without prejudice based on Cummings’s failure to file an amended 12 |} complaint in compliance with this Court’s October 13, 2022, order. The Clerk of 13 || Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 14 || documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Cummings wishes to pursue 15 || his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 16 It is further ordered that Cummings’s application to proceed in forma 17 || pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot. 18 19 DATED THIS 30t# day of November 2022. 20 on Fre Howse 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28