1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 BRIAN KEITH WRIGHT, Case No. 2:23-cv-00126-GMN-VCF 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v.

6 CITY OF LAS VEGAS,

7 Defendant.

8

9 Plaintiff Brian Wright (“Plaintiff”) brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 10 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated. 11 (ECF No. 1-1 at 1). On May 23, 2023, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file a complete 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before July 13 21, 2023. (ECF No. 5 at 1). The Court warned Plaintiff that the action could be dismissed 14 if he failed to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing 15 fee by that deadline. (Id.). On July 28, 2023, the Court extended the deadline to file a 16 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee until August 30, 17 2023. (ECF No. 7 at 1). That deadline expired, and Plaintiff did not file a complete 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee, move for an extension, 19 or otherwise respond. 20 I. DISCUSSION 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 22 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 23 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 24 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 25 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 26 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 27 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, the only alternative is to enter a third 2 order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often 3 only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances 4 here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Plaintiff needs 5 additional time. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 6 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 7 II. CONCLUSION 8 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 9 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 10 prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a complete application to proceed in forma 11 pauperis or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court’s July 28, 2023, order. The 12 Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 13 documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, 14 he must file a complaint in a new case. 15 DATED THIS 7th day of September 2023.

16

17 ___ Gloria M. Navarro, Judge 18 United States District Court

19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27