1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 ROBERT LEE FINLEY, Case No. 2:23-cv-01163-ART-EJY 3 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING 4 v. CASE

5 OFFICER GRAY, et al.,

6 Defendants.

7 8 Plaintiff Robert Finley brings this civil-rights action under

9 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while he was 10 housed at Clark County Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1). On August 2, 2023, 11 this Court ordered Finley to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 12 pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before September 1, 2023. (ECF 13 No. 3). The Court warned Finley that the action could be dismissed if he failed to 14 file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three 15 documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. (Id. at 16 1–2). That deadline expired and Finley did not file a fully complete application to 17 proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise respond. And 18 the Court’s mail to Finley has been returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 4). 19 I. DISCUSSION 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 21 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 22 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 23 Angeles,

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

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 26 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 27 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) 28 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 1 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 2 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 3 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 4 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 5 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

, 6 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

). 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 8 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 9 dismissal of Finley’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also 10 weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 11 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 12 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 13 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 14 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 15 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 16 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 17 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 18 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 19 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 20 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 21 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 22 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this Court must collect reasonable filing 24 fees from litigants, and litigation cannot progress without a plaintiff’s compliance 25 with the court’s orders, the only alternative is to issue a second order setting 26 another deadline. But without an updated address, the likelihood that the second 27 order would even reach Finely is low, so issuing a second order will only delay 28 the inevitable and further squander the Court’s finite resources. Setting a second 1 || deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth 2 || factor favors dismissal. 3 || II. CONCLUSION 4 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 5 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 6 || dismissed without prejudice based on Robert Lee Finley’s failure to file a fully 7 || complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee 8 || in compliance with this Court’s August 2, 2023, order. The Clerk of Court is 9 || directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents 10 || may be filed in this now-closed case. If Robert Lee Finely wishes to pursue his 11 || claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the required filing 12 || fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 13 14 DATED THIS 12th day of September 2023.

15 Aras jlosed Wn 16 ANNER.TRAUM 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28