1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 JEREMY DEFRENCHI, Case No. 2:24-cv-01407-JAD-BNW

5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 v.

7 KEVIN SPEED, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 On July 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed his complaint. ECF No. 1. Because he failed to pay the 11 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 and to date has 13 not submitted an application or paid the fee. As a result, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s 14 case be dismissed without prejudice. 15 The law permits a district court to dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to comply 16 with a court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 17 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint). In determining whether to 18 dismiss an action on this ground, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 19 resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the 20 defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the 21 availability of less-drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

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

(9th Cir. 23 1987)). 24 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 25 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third 26 factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 27 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 1 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 2 || factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits— weighs against dismissal. 3 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less-drastic alternatives can be used 4 || to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. Courts 5 || “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 6 || explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th 7 || Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed without a completed IFP application or a paid 8 || filing fee, the only alternative is to enter another order setting another deadline. The 9 || circumstances here do not indicate that Plaintiff needs additional time. Therefore, setting another 10 || deadline is not a meaningful alternative. So, the fifth factor favors dismissal. 11 In balance, the factors above favor a recommendation of dismissal. See Hernandez v. City 12 || of El Monte,

(9th Cir. 1998) (holding that dismissal is proper where at least four 13 || factors support dismissal or where at least three factors “strongly” support dismissal). 14 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this action is DISMISSED without 15 || prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s deadline. 16 NOTICE 17 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 18 || to this case under

(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 19 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 20 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 21 || objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

, 22 || 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 24 DATED: October 4, 2024 25 pm la WCE BRENDA WEKSLER 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28