1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 JOSE A. MAGANA, 3 Case No. 3:22-cv-00563-ART-CSD Plaintiff, 4 v. ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE 5 RENE BAKER, et al.,

6 Defendants.

7 8 Plaintiff Jose Magana brings this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 9 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while he 10 was incarcerated at Lovelock Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1-1). On October 23, 11 2023, this Court ordered Magana to file his updated address with the Court and 12 either file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for a non- 13 inmate or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before November 22, 2023. (ECF No. 7). 14 The Court warned Magana that this action could be dismissed if he failed to 15 timely comply. (Id. at 1–2). The deadline has expired, but Magana has not filed 16 his updated address with the Court and either filed an application to proceed in 17 forma pauperis for a non-inmate or paid the filing fee for this action. And the 18 Court’s mail to Magana has been returned as undeliverable, noting that he has 19 been paroled. (ECF No. 8). 20 I. DISCUSSION 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 22 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 23 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 24 Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 25 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 26 King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 27 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 28 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) 1 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 2 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 3 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 5 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 6 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

, 7 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

). 8 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 9 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 10 dismissing Magana’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also 11 weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 12 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 13 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 14 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 15 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 16 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 17 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 18 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 19 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 20 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 21 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 22 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 23 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Litigation cannot progress without the ability of 25 the court and defendants to send a plaintiff case correspondence. And this action 26 cannot realistically proceed until Scott either files a fully complete application to 27 proceed in forma pauperis for a non-inmate or pays the $402 filing fee for this 28 action. The only alternative to dismissal here is to enter a second order setting 1 || another deadline. But issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and 2 || further squander the Court’s finite resources because the chance that the order 3 || will even reach Magana is low. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 4 || alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 5 || II. CONCLUSION 6 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 7 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 8 || dismissed without prejudice based on Jose Magana’s failure to file his updated 9 || address with the Court and either file a fully complete application to proceed in 10 || forma pauperis for a non-inmate or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with 11 || this Court’s October 23, 2023, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter 12 || judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in 13 || this now-closed case. If Jose Magana wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a 14 || complaint in a new case and either pay the required filing fee or properly apply 15 || to proceed in forma pauperis. 16 17 DATED THIS 30 day of November 2023. 18 i dun 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28