1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 JUSTIN TYRON JACKSON, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00627-APG-EJY

4 Plaintiff Dismissal Order

5 v.

6 STATE OF NEVADA,

7 Defendant

8

9 Plaintiff Justin Tyron Jackson attempted to bring an action to federal court but did not 10 submit an initiating document. See ECF No. 1. On May 8, 2023, the magistrate judge ordered 11 Jackson to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 12 filing fee on or before June 5, 2023. ECF No. 4. The magistrate judge also ordered Jackson to 13 file a complaint on or before June 5, 2023. Id. at 1. The magistrate judge warned Jackson that 14 the action could be dismissed if he failed to submit an initiating document and file a fully 15 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402 16 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. Id. at 1-2. That deadline expired and Jackson did 17 not file an initiating document, file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, 18 pay the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 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 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 1 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. 2 Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 3 order). In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, I must consider: (1) 4 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its

5 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 6 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 7 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone 8 v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987)). 9 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 10 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Jackson’s case. The third 11 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption 12 of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the 13 court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The 14 fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly

15 outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 16 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to 17 correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 18 v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 19 alternatives before 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 “the persuasive 21 force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives 22 prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial 23 granting of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have 1 been “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 2 finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 3 Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 4 until and unless Jackson submits an initiating document and either files a fully complete

5 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only 6 alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an 7 ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the court’s finite resources. 8 The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that 9 Jackson needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the court’s order. Setting 10 another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor 11 favors dismissal. 12 II. Conclusion 13 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 14 dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on

15 Jackson’s failure to file an initiating document and a fully complete application to proceed in 16 forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with the magistrate judge’s May 8, 17 2023, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No 18 other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Jackson wishes to pursue his claims, he 19 must file a complaint in a new case. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 1 I order that Jackson’s form motions for appointment of counsel [ECF Nos. 1-1, 3-1] are 2|| denied as moot.! 3 Dated: June 12, 2023 C= U.S. District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 3 'T note that Jackson’s form motions for appointment of counsel reference petitions for writ of habeas corpus. If Jackson seeks to pursue a habeas case in a new action, he needs to submit an initiating document such as a petition for writ of habeas corpus to the Clerk of the Court.