1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 FRANK F. LOCKMAN, JR., Case No. 2:23-cv-00282-GMN-NJK

4 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 5 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF 6 CORRECTIONS MEDICAL, et al.,

7 Defendants.

8 9 Plaintiff Frank F. Lockman, Jr. brings this civil-rights action under

10 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High 11 Desert State Prison. (ECF No. 1). On March 17, 2023, this Court ordered Lockman to file 12 a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on 13 or before May 19, 2023. (ECF No. 3). The Court warned Lockman that the action could 14 be dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis 15 with all three documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. 16 (Id. at 2). Lockman subsequently filed a second incomplete application to proceed in 17 forma pauperis, as well as multiple motions for extensions. (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 7). The Court 18 granted Lockman one final opportunity to submit a fully complete application to proceed 19 in forma pauperis by October 6, 2023. (ECF No. 9). That deadline expired and Lockman 20 still has not filed a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, nor did he request 21 any further extension. 22 I. DISCUSSION 23 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 24 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 25 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 26 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 27 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 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 v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987)). 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 dismissal of Lockman’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 1 or pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a another order 2 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 3 delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 4 do not indicate that this case will be an exception. The Court has already granted 5 Lockman multiple extensions. There is no evidence that Lockman did not receive the 6 Court’s most recent order or any reason to believe that Lockman would file a complete 7 application to proceed in forma pauperis if granted another extension. Setting another 8 deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor 9 favors dismissal. 10 II. CONCLUSION 11 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 12 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 13 prejudice based on Lockman’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in 14 forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s March 17, 15 2023, May 22, 2023, and August 22, 2023, orders. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter 16 judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now- 17 closed case. If Lockman wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new 18 case. 19 Lockman’s pending incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 20 4) is denied. 21 22 DATED THIS _2_6_day of October 2023. 23

24 Gloria M. Navarro, Judge United States District Court 25 26 27