2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 STEPHEN ZARATE, Case No. 2:22-cv-02046-RFB-BNW 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v.

6 TRINITY, et al.,

7 Defendants.

8

9 10 Plaintiff Stephen Zarate brings this pro se civil-rights action under

to 11 redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while he was detained at Clark County 12 Detention Center. (ECF No. 10). On January 19, 2024, this Court ordered screened Zarate First 13 Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, dismissing some claims with prejudice and the 14 remaining claims with leave to file a second amended complaint by February 19, 2024. (ECF 15 No. 9). Because the Court’s mail to Zarate was returned as undeliverable, (ECF No. 11), on March 16 11, 2024, the Court extended the deadline to amend to April 11, 2024, and also ordered Zarate to 17 file his updated address with the Court by that deadline. (ECF No. 12). That deadline has expired 18 without a second amended complaint or an updated address from Zarate. 19 20 I. DISCUSSION 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 22 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 23 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 24 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 25 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 26 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 27 Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In 28 determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 2 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 3 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 4 Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

) 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 6 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Zarate’s claims. The third 7 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 8 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 9 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 10 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 11 the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 13 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 14 v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 15 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 16 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every 17 sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and 18 meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Litigation 19 cannot progress without a party’s compliance with the court’s orders, and this action cannot 20 proceed until Zarate files a second amended complaint. The only alternative to dismissal here is to 21 enter a third order setting a third deadline. But setting another deadline is not a meaningful 22 alternative given these circumstances because Zarate ignored the Court’s earlier orders. The fifth 23 factor therefore favors dismissal. 24 25 II. CONCLUSION 26 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 27 favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 28 Stephen Zarate’s failure to file a second amended complaint and an updated address in compliance 1 || with the Court’s January 19 and March 11, 2024, orders. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter 2 || judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed 3 || case. If Zarate wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and provide the 4 || Court with his current address. 5 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) 1s 6 || GRANTED. This status doesn’t relieve Zarate of his obligation to pay the full $350 filing fee under 7 || the statute; it just means that he can do it in installments. And the full $350 filing fee remains due 8 || and owing even though this case is being dismissed. 9 It is further ordered that the Nevada Department of Corrections must pay to the Clerk of 10 || the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month’s deposits to the 11 || account of Stephen Zarate, #1155370 (in months that the account exceeds $10) until the full $350 12 || filing fee has been paid for this action. 13 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court will send a copy of this order to (1) the 14 || Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office and (2) the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the 15 || Nevada Department of Corrections at [email protected]. 16 17 DATED: April 18, 2024.

19 reat —___ RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28