1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 DOMINIC MALONE, Case No. 2:23-cv-00217-APG-NJK 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v.

6 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

7 Defendants.

8

9 Plaintiff Dominic Malone brings this civil-rights action under

to redress 10 constitutional violations. ECF No. 10. On May 3, 2023, I ordered Malone to file an amended 11 complaint by June 7, 2023. ECF No. 9 at 7. I warned Malone that the action could be dismissed if 12 he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline.

That deadline expired, and Malone did 13 not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 14 I. DISCUSSION 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 16 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 17 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 18 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 19 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 20 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 21 Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In 22 determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) 23 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 24 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 25 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 26 27 1 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 2

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

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 8 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 9 the factors favoring dismissal. 10 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 11 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 12 v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 13 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 14 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive 15 force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives 16 prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting 17 of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been 18 “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 19 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 20

(9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 21 unless Malone files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 22 another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the 23 inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that 24 this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Malone needs additional time or evidence that 25 he did not receive the Court’s screening order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 26 alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 27 1 || UL. CONCLUSION 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 3 || dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Malone’s 4 || failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s order and for failure to state 5 || aclaim. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 6 || documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Malone wishes to pursue his claims, he must 7 || file a complaint in a new case. 8 I further order that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) is 9 || GRANTED. Plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial installment of the filing fee. 10 I further order that, pursuant to

, as amended by the Prison Litigation 11 || Reform Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections will forward payments from the account of 12 || DOMINIC MALONE, #69418 to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of 13 || Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) until 14 || the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of the Court will send a copy of 15 || this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk will send a copy of this order 16 || to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections at 17 || [email protected]. 18 I further order that, even though this action is dismissed, or is otherwise unsuccessful, the 19 || full filing fee will still be due, pursuant to

, as amended by the Prison Litigation 20 || Reform Act. 21 DATED THIS 12" day of June 2023. 22 Z 23 U.S. District Judge 24 25 26 27 28