2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 DAVID BOOKER, Case No. 2:22-cv-01968-GMN-DJA

7 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 8 JOSEPH LOMBARDO, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 12 Plaintiff David Booker brings this civil-rights action under

to redress 13 constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while housed at Clark County Detention Center. 14 ECF No. 1-1. On January 10, 2023, this Court ordered Booker to file a fully complete application 15 to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before March 13, 2023. ECF 16 No. 6. That deadline expired and Booker did not apply to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full 17 $402 filing fee, or otherwise respond. And the Court’s mail to Booker has been returned as 18 undeliverable. ECF No. 7. 19 I. DISCUSSION 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 21 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 22 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 23 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 24 Carey v. King,

, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 25 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 26 Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In 27 determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 28 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 2 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 3 Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

). 4 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 5 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Booker’s claims. The third 6 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 7 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 8 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 9 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 10 the factors favoring dismissal. 11 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 12 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 13 v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 14 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 15 finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 16 Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 17 until and unless Booker either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or 18 pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 19 another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the 20 inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. 21 The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: without an 22 updated address, the chance that a second order would even reach Booker is low. Setting another 23 deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, the fifth factor favors 24 dismissal. Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh 25 in favor of dismissal. 26 II. CONCLUSION 27 It is therefore ordered that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Plaintiff 28 David Booker’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the 2 is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in 3 this now-closed case. If Booker wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new 4 case. 5 6 DATED: March 16, 2023

7

8 GLORIA M. NAVARRO 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28