1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 HASAN M. DAVIS, Case No. 3:22-cv-00550-ART-CSD

4 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 5 JAMES P. CONWAY, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Hasan M. Davis brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 9 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 10 incarcerated at Washoe County Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1) On February 14, 11 2023, this Court ordered Davis to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis 12 for non-prisoners, or pay the $402 filing fee, by March 17, 2023. (ECF No. 11.) 13 That deadline expired, and Davis has not filed an application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis for non-prisoners, filed a motion for an extension, or otherwise 15 responded to the Court’s order. 16 DISCUSSION 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 18 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 19 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 20 Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 21 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 22 King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 23 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 24 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) 25 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 26 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 27 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 28 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 1 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 2 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

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

(9th 4 Cir. 1987)). 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 6 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 7 dismissal of Davis’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also 8 weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 9 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 10 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 11 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 12 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 14 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 15 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 16 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 17 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 19 “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted 20 pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as 21 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 23 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 24 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 25 Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). This action cannot 26 realistically proceed until and unless Davis either files a complete application to 27 proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pays the $402 filing fee. As such, 28 the only alternative to dismissal is to enter another order setting another 1 || deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays 2 || the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 3 || do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Davis 4 || needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s order. 5 || Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 6 || circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 7 || II. CONCLUSION 8 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 9 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 10 || dismissed without prejudice based on Davis’s failure to file an application to 11 || proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners, or pay the $402 filing fee, om 12 |} compliance with this Court’s February 14, 2023, order. The Clerk of Court is 13 || directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents 14 || may be filed in this now-closed case. If Davis wishes to pursue his claims, he 15 |} must file a complaint in a new case and provide the Court with his current 16 || address. 17 18 DATED THIS 26' day of May 2023. 19 20 i dun 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28