2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 SHERITA LEE, Case No. 2:23-cv-01475-GMN-NJK

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 OFFICER WALLACE (MEDICAL), 9 Defendant. 10

11 12 Plaintiff Sherita Lee brings this civil-rights action under

to redress 13 constitutional violations that she claims she suffered while incarcerated at Clark County 14 Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1.) On October 13, 2023, this Court ordered Lee to file a 15 fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee on 16 or before December 12, 2023. (ECF No. 4.) The Court warned Lee that the action could 17 be dismissed if she failed to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis 18 with all three documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. 19 (Id. at 2.) That deadline expired and Lee did not file a fully complete application to 20 proceed in forma pauperis, pay the full $402 filing fee, or otherwise respond. The Court’s 21 order came back as undeliverable to the address that Lee provided. 22 I. DISCUSSION 23 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 24 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 25 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 26 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 27 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 28 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 2 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 3 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 4 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 5 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 6 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 7 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 8 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987)). 9 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 10 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Lee’s claims. 11 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because 12 a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a 13 pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542

, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 15 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 16 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 17 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 18 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 19 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 20 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th 21 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 22 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 23 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 24 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 25 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 26 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until 28 and unless Lee either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or 2 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 3 delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 4 do not indicate that this case will be an exception: the Court’s previous order came back 5 as undeliverable to the address that Lee previously provided, and Lee has not provided 6 an updated address. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 7 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 8 II. CONCLUSION 9 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 10 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 11 prejudice based on Lee’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 12 pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s October 18, 2023, 13 order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 14 No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Lee wishes to pursue her 15 claims, she must file a complaint in a new case. 16 17 DATED THIS _5__ day of January 2024.

18

19 ___ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28