2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 REGINALD HOLLAND-HOUSTON, Case No. 3:23-cv-00625-ART-CSD

4 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 5 JOB, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff ReGinald Holland-Houston brings this civil-rights action under 42

to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 10 incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. (ECF No. 1-1.) On October 16, 2024, 11 this Court ordered Holland-Houston to update his address by November 18, 12 2024. (ECF No. 29). That deadline expired without an updated address from 13 Holland-Houston, and his mail from the Court is being returned as undeliverable. 14 (See ECF No. 30). 15 DISCUSSION 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 17 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 18 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 19 Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 20 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 21 King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 22 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 23 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) 24 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 25 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 26 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 27 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 28 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 2 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th 3 Cir. 1987)). 4 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 5 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 6 dismissal of Holland-Houston’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to 7 defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 8 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by 9 the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

, 524 10 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases 11 on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 13 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 14 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 15 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 16 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 17 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 18 “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted 19 pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as 20 satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 21 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 22 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 23 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 24 Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because this action 25 cannot realistically proceed without the ability for the Court and the defendants 26 to send Holland-Houston case-related documents, filings, and orders, the only 27 alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But without an 28 updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach Holland- 1 |} Houston is low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and 2 || further squander the Court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a 3 || meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors 4 || dismissal. 5 || I. 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 Holland-Houston’s failure to file an 9 || updated address in compliance with this Court’s October 16, 2024, order. The 10 || Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No 11 || other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Holland-Houston wishes 12 || to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and provide the 13 || Court with his current address. 14 It is further ordered that Holland-Houston’s application to proceed in forma 15 || pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot. 16 17 DATED THIS 17th day of December 2024. 18 19 20 Ars jloset Jan 21 ANNE R. TRAUM 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28