1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 BRADEN CARL LUCAS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00740-GMN-NJK 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v.

6 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., 7 Defendants. 8

9 10 Plaintiff Braden Lucas (“Plaintiff”) brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 11 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated 12 at Clark County Detention Center. (ECF No. 4 at 1). On May 20, 2023, this Court ordered 13 Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for a non-prisoner or pay the 14 full $402 filling fee and submit an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the entry 15 of the screening order. (ECF No. 3 at 5-6). The Court warned Plaintiff that the action could 16 be dismissed if he failed to file an application to procced in forma pauperis for a non- 17 prisoner or pay the full filing fee and submit an amended complaint by that deadline. (Id.). 18 That deadline expired and Plaintiff did not file an application to procced in forma pauperis 19 for a non-prisoner, pay the full filing fee, submit an amended complaint, move for an 20 extension, or otherwise respond. 21 I. DISCUSSION 22 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 23 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 24 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 25 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 26 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 27 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 1 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th 2 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 3 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 4 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 5 (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 8 Malone,

). 9 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 10 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissing Plaintiff’s 11 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 12 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 13 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542

, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 15 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 16 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 17 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 18 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 19 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 20 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th 21 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 22 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 23 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 24 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 25 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 26 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 1 unless Plaintiff satisfies the matter of the filing fee and files an amended complaint, the 2 only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of 3 repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the 4 Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an 5 exception: there is no hint that Plaintiff needs additional time or evidence that he did not 6 receive the Court’s screening order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 7 alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 8 II. CONCLUSION 9 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 10 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 11 prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an application to procced in forma pauperis for 12 a non-prisoner or pay the full filing fee and submit an amended complaint in compliance 13 with this Court’s May 20, 2023, order and for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court 14 is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may 15 be filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a 16 complaint in a new case. 17 DATED THIS XXth day of July 2023. 13 18

19 ___ Gloria M. Navarro, Judge 20 United States District Court

21

22 23 24 25 26 27