2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 JASMINE SANCHEZ, Case No. 2:23-cv-00616-GMN-DJA

6 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE 7 v.

8 WILLIAM REUBART,

9 Defendant.

10 This action began with a pro se civil-rights complaint filed by a state prisoner. On May 11 31, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff Jasmine Sanchez to pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil 12 action by June 30, 2023. (ECF No. 5). The Court warned Plaintiff that this action would be subject 13 to dismissal without prejudice if he failed to pay the required filing fee by June 30, 2023. (Id. at 14 3). That deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not paid the required filing fee. 15 I. DISCUSSION 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 17 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 18 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 19 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. 20 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 21 with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack 22 of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action 23 on these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 24 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 25 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 26 drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 27 2006) (quoting Malone,

). 28 2 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third 3 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 4 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. 5 Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring 6 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 7 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 8 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. Yourish v. 9 Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 10 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 11 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every 12 sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and 13 meaningful alternatives.” Henderson,

. Because this court cannot operate without 14 collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without a plaintiff’s compliance with 15 court orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But issuing a 16 second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the Court’s finite resources 17 because it appears that Plaintiff ignored the first order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 18 alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 19 II. CONCLUSION 20 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 21 favor of dismissal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED 22 without prejudice based on the plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee in compliance with the court’s 23 May 31, 2023, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and 24 CLOSE THIS CASE. If Jasmine Sanchez wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint 25 in a new case, and he must pay the fee for that action. 26 27 DATED: July 6, 2023 ________________________________ 28 GLORIA M. NAVARRO