2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 JESUS AMIEVA, Case No. 3:22-cv-00348-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v. 9 BRIAN WARD, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Plaintiff Jesus Amieva brings this civil-rights action under

to 13 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Northern 14 Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 13.) On September 5, 2023, this Court ordered 15 Amieva to update his address and either pay the full $402 filing fee for this civil action or 16 file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for a non-inmate by October 5, 2023. 17 (ECF No. 28.) That deadline expired without compliance or any other response from 18 Amieva, and his mail from the Court is being returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 31.) 19 I. DISCUSSION 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 21 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 22 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 23 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 24 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 25 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 26 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 27 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss 28 2 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 3 of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 4 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 5 Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

). 6 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 7 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Amieva’s 8 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 9 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 10 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 12 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 14 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 15 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 16 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 17 does not satisfy this factor); Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 18 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 19 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 20 Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically 21 proceed without the ability for the Court and the defendants to send Amieva case-related 22 documents, filings, and orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 23 another deadline. But without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order 24 would even reach Amieva is low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable 25 and further squander the Court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a 26 meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 |/ I. CONCLUSION 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 3 || weigh in favor of dismissal. 4 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 5 || Jesus Amieva’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this □□□□□□□ 6 || September 5, 2023, order. 7 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 8 || No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Amieva wishes to pursue his 9 || claims, he must file a complaint in a new case, provide the Court with his current address, 10 || and either pay the full filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status. 11 DATED THIS day of October 2023. 12 13 14 MIRANDA M. DU 6 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28