2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 TERRENCE DAVIS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00286-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CHAMBERLIN, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Plaintiff Terrence Davis initiated this action on June 15, 2023, but he failed to file 13 a complaint and either pay the full $402 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis (“IFP”). On June 22, 2023, the Court ordered Davis to file a complaint and either 15 pay the required filing fee or apply for IFP status by August 21, 2023. (ECF No. 5.) That 16 deadline has expired, and Davis has not filed a complaint, either paid the filing fee or 17 applied for IFP status, or otherwise responded. 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 22 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 23 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 24 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 25 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th 26 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 27 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 28 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 2 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 3 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

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

). 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 6 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Davis’s 7 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 8 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 9 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 11 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 13 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 14 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 15 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 16 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th 17 Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 18 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 19 Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because litigation cannot progress without 20 an operative complaint and a plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s orders, the only 21 alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But entering a second 22 order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the Court’s finite resources 23 because Davis ignored the first order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 24 alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 27 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 28 prejudice based on Terrence Davis’s failure to file a complaint and either pay the filing fee 1 || or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with this Court’s June 2 || 22, 2023 order. 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 4 || No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Terrence Davis wishes to 5 || pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the required filing 6 || fee or apply for pauper status. 7 DATED THIS 29" Day of August 2023. AG 9 MIRANDA M. DU 10 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28