1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Raymond Eugene Butcher, Jr., Case No. 2:24-cv-00534-CDS-BNW

5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 v.

7 L.A. County, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 On May 20, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by June 21, 11 2024. ECF No. 5. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to file the amended complaint may 12 result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed. Id. On June 26, 2024, the Court again 13 ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and gave him until July 10, 2024, to do so. ECF 14 No. 7. It again warned Plaintiff that the case may be dismissed if he did not comply. Id. Finally, 15 on July 25, 2024, the Court, yet again, ordered Plaintiff to file his amended complaint. ECF 10. 16 Plaintiff neither filed an amended complaint by that deadline nor moved for an extension of time 17 to do so. As a result, this Court recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice and 18 closed. 19 The law permits a district court to dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute 20 his case or comply with a court order. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest 21 Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that courts may dismiss an action pursuant 22 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply 23 with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 24 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 25 complaint). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the court must consider: (1) the public’s 26 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 27 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

, 2 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 4 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third 5 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 6 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 7 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 8 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits— weighs against dismissal. 9 The fifth factor requires the court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 10 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. Courts 11 “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 12 explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th 13 Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed without an operative complaint, the only 14 alternative is to enter a fourth order setting another deadline. The circumstances here do not 15 indicate that Plaintiff needs additional time nor is there evidence that he did not receive at least 16 two of the court’s orders. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 17 circumstances. So, the fifth factor favors dismissal. 18 In balance, the factors above favor a recommendation of dismissal. See Hernandez v. City 19 of El Monte,

(9th Cir. 1998) (holdings dismissal is proper where least four factors 20 support dismissal or where at least three factors “strongly” support dismissal). 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED for 2 || failure to file an amended complaint by the court-ordered deadlines. 3 4 NOTICE 5 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 6 || to this case under

(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 7 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 8 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 9 || objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Yist,

, 10 |} 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 1] 12 DATED: August 26, 2024 13 gn la We Eat BRENDA WEKSLER 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28