2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 WILLIAM L. THOMPSON, Case No. 3:23-cv-00345-ART-CLB

4 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 5 PERRY RUSSELL, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff William L. Thompson brings this civil-rights action under 42

to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 10 incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 6). On March 13, 11 2024, this Court ordered Thompson to file a fully complete application to proceed 12 in forma pauperis for non-inmates or pay the full $402 filing fee on or before April 13 12, 2024. (ECF No. 8). The Court warned Thompson that the action could be 14 dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis for non-inmates or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action by that 16 deadline. (Id. at 1–2). That deadline expired and Thompson did not file an 17 application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-inmates, pay the full $402 filing 18 fee, or otherwise respond. 19 I. DISCUSSION 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 21 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 22 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 23 Angeles,

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

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

(9th Cir. 1987) 28 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 2 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 3 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 4 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 5 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

, 6 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

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

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

, 18 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 19 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 20 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 21 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 22 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 24 until and unless Thompson either files a fully complete application to proceed in 25 forma pauperis for non-inmates or pays the $402 filing fee for a civil action, the 26 only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality 27 of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and 28 squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate 1 || that this case will be an exception. Setting a second deadline is not a meaningful 2 || alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 3 || II. CONCLUSION 4 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 5 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 6 || dismissed without prejudice based on William L. Thompson’s failure to file a fully 7 || complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-inmates or pay the full 8 || $402 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s March 13, 2024, order. The Clerk 9 || of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 10 || documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If William Thompson wishes to 11 || pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 12 13 DATED THIS 29th day of April 2024. 14 i oun 15 Yoo / ANNE R. TRAUM 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28