2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 NOBLE WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00667-RFB-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 C. DANIELS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 12 Plaintiff Noble Williams brings this civil-rights action under

to redress 13 constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated. ECF No. 11. On April 18, 14 2023, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non- 15 prisoners or pay the full $402 filing fee within 30 days. ECF No. 12 at 7. The Court warned Plaintiff 16 that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis 17 for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee of $402 by that deadline.

That deadline expired and 18 Plaintiff did not file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners, pay the full 19 $402 filing fee, or otherwise respond. The Court permitted this case to proceed to its scheduled 20 inmate early mediation conference. ECF No. 17. However, Plaintiff did not appear and has made 21 no contact with the Court.

22 I. DISCUSSION 23 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 24 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 25 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

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

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

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 7 833 F.2d at 130. 8 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 9 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third 10 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 11 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 12 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 13 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 14 the factors favoring dismissal. 15 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 16 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 17 v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 18 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 19 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive 20 force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives 21 prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting 22 of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been 23 “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 24 dismissing a case but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 25

(9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 26 unless Plaintiff either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non- 27 prisoners or pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a second order 28 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays 1 || the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate 2 || that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Plaintiff needs additional time or evidence 3 || that he did not receive the Court’s order. Additionally, Plaintiff has made no attempt to comply 4 || with any of the Court’s other orders, including mediation. Setting another deadline is not a 5 || meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 6 || Il. CONCLUSION 7 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 8 || favor of dismissal. 9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 10 || Plaintiff’s failure to file an application for in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full $402 11 || filing fee in compliance with this Court’s April 18, 2023, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to 12 || enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now- 13 || closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 14 15 DATED: January 19, 2024 16 17 C < 18 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, I 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28