1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 AARON GUERRERO, Case No. 2:24-cv-00261-MMD-BNW 5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 v. 7 GABRIEL GRASSO, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 On February 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed his complaint. ECF No. 1. Because he failed to pay 11 the filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court gave him 30 days to submit the IFP 12 application or pay the fee. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff failed to comply with the deadline, so the Court 13 recommended that his case be dismissed. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff objected to the recommendation 14 and requested an extension of the deadline. ECF No. 5. The Court vacated its recommendation 15 and gave Plaintiff a new deadline. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has once again failed to comply with the 16 deadline and to date has not submitted an application or paid the fee. As a result, the Court 17 recommends that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice. 18 The law permits a district court to dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to comply 19 with a court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 20 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint). In determining whether to 21 dismiss an action on this ground, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 22 resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the 23 defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the 24 availability of less-drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 26 1987)). 27 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 1 || factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 2 || injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 3 || or prosecuting an action. See Anderson vy. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 4 || factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits— weighs against dismissal. 5 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less-drastic alternatives can be used 6 || to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. Courts 7 || “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 8 || explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th 9 || Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed without a completed IFP application or a paid 10 || filing fee, the only alternative is to enter another order setting another deadline. The 11 || circumstances here do not indicate that Plaintiff needs additional time. Therefore, setting another 12 || deadline is not a meaningful alternative. So, the fifth factor favors dismissal. 13 In balance, the factors above favor a recommendation of dismissal. See Hernandez v. City 14 || of El Monte,

(9th Cir. 1998) (holding that dismissal is proper where at least four 15 || factors support dismissal or where at least three factors “strongly” support dismissal). 16 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this action is DISMISSED without 17 || prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s deadline. 18 NOTICE 19 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 20 || to this case under

(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 21 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 22 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 23 || objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

, 24 || 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 26 DATED: October 7, 2024 27 LZ gm la Wye ENDA WEKSLER 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE