2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 BRENDAN R. COENEN, Case No. 3:22-cv-00429-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 NAPHCARE, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Brendan R. Coenen brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 13 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations he claims to have suffered while incarcerated 14 at the Washoe County Detention Facility. (ECF No. 1-2.) On December 9, 2022, this Court 15 ordered that, on or before January 10, 2023, Coenen must (1) update his address and 16 (2) either file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) for non- 17 prisoners or pay the full filing fee of $402. (ECF No. 3.) That deadline expired without an 18 updated address, IFP application for non-prisoners, or the $402 filing fee from Coenen, 19 and his mail from the Court is being returned as undeliverable. (See ECF No. 4.) 20 I. DISCUSSION 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 22 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 23 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A.,

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

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

(9th Cir. 1987) 28 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss an 2 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 3 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 5 Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

). 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 Coenen’s 8 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 9 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 10 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 12 cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 14 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 15 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 16 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 17 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th 18 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 19 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 20 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 21 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 22 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 23 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed without 25 the ability of the Court and the defendants to send Coenen case-related documents, 26 filings, and orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. 27 But without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach 28 Coenen is low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and further 1 || squander the Court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 2 || alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 3 || Ul. 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 Plaintiff Brendan R. Coenen’s failure to file an updated address and 7 || either an IFP application for non-prisoners or the $402 filing fee in compliance with this 8 || Court's December 9, 2022, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 9 || accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed 10 || case. If Coenen wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and 11 || provide the Court with his current address. 12 DATED THIS 12'" Day of January 2023.

14 MIRANDA M. DU 15 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28