2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 ANTWOINE SCONIERS, Case No. 2:22-cv-01739-GMN-VCF

6 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE 7 v.

8 CALVIN JOHNSON, et al.,

9 Defendants.

10 This action began with a pro se civil-rights complaint filed under

by a 11 state prisoner. On July 17, 2023, the Court ordered plaintiff Antwoine Sconiers, who is no longer 12 incarcerated in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections, to file her updated address 13 with the Court and either pay the full $402 filing fee for this action or file an application to proceed 14 in forma pauperis for non-prisoners by August 16, 2023. (ECF No. 36). The Court warned 15 Sconiers that this action would be subject to dismissal without prejudice if she did not timely 16 comply. (Id. at 2). That deadline has passed, and Sconiers has not filed her updated address with 17 the Court, either paid the required filing fee or filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 18 for non-prisoners, or otherwise responded to the Court’s July 17, 2023, order. And the Court’s 19 mail to Sconiers has been returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 37). 20 I. DISCUSSION 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 22 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 23 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 24 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. 25 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 26 with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack 27 of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action 28 on these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 2 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 3 drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 4 2006) (quoting Malone,

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

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring 10 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 11 The fifth factor requires this Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 12 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the need to consider dismissal. Yourish v. Cal. 13 Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives 14 before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. 15 Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short 16 of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 17 alternatives.” Henderson,

. Because this action cannot realistically proceed 18 without the ability for the Court and the defendants to send Sconiers case-related documents, 19 filings, and orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But 20 without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach Sconiers is low, 21 so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the Court’s finite 22 resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, 23 the fifth factor favors dismissal. 24 II. CONCLUSION 25 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 26 favor of dismissal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED 27 without prejudice based on Antwoine Sconiers’s failure to file her updated address with the Court 28 and either pay the required filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status as a non-prisoner in 2 JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. If Antwoine Sconiers wishes to pursue her 3 claims, she must file a complaint in a new case, and either apply for in forma pauperis status or 4 pay the required filing fee for that action. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to seal documents containing or concerning 6 the plaintiff’s private medical records (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is 7 directed to MAINTAIN THE SEAL on ECF No. 27. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s pending motions for pretrial equitable 9 relief and related matters (ECF Nos. 16, 17, 29) are DENIED as moot. 10 11 DATED: August 18, 2023 ________________________________ 12 GLORIA M. NAVARRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28