2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 TYRONE NOEL NUNN, Case No. 3:24-cv-00087-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ELY STATE PRISON, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Plaintiff Tyrone Nunn brings this civil rights action under

to 13 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Ely State 14 Prison. (ECF No. 1-1). On September 19, 2024, this Court ordered Nunn to update his 15 address by November 18, 2024. (ECF No. 5.) That deadline expired without an updated 16 address filed by Nunn, and his mail from the Court is being returned as undeliverable. 17 (ECF No. 6.) 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 22 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 23 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 24 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 25 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th 26 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 27 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 28 2 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 3 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 4 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 5 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 Nunn’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); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th 18 Cir. 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 Nunn’s compliance with the Court’s orders or the ability for the Court and 22 the defendants to send him case-related documents, filings, and orders, the only 23 alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But without an updated 24 address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach Nunn is low, so issuing a 25 second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the Court’s finite 26 resources. Moreover, Nunn has filed over 80 pro se lawsuits in this district since July 27 28 1 || 2023.’ Dozens of these lawsuits have been dismissed because Nunn failed to correct 2 || fundamental defects with them like keeping the Court apprised of his current address; 3 || filing a single, signed complaint; and either paying the filing fee or filing a complete 4 || application to proceed in forma pauperis. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 5 || alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. In sum, having 6 || thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of 7 || dismissal. 8 || Ill. CONCLUSION 9 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 10 || Tyrone Nunn’s failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court’s 11 || September 19, 2024, order. 12 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 13 || No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Nunn wishes to pursue his 14 || claims, he must file a complaint in a new case, provide the Court with his current address, 15 || and either pay the filing fee or file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. 16 DATED THIS 6" Day of December 2024.

18 MIRANDA M. DU 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the U.S. Courts, which may be accessed by the public at: □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□