1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 Kei-Ard T. Bell, Case No. 2:22-cv-00883-CDS-DJA

4 Plaintiff Order Dismissing Action and Closing Case 5 v.

6 Accessible Space Inc.,

7 Defendant

8 9 This case has laid dormant for over a year and a half. Plaintiff Kei-Ard T. Bell was notified 10 that because of this lack of activity, his continued failure to prosecute would result in dismissal 11 on May 9, 2024. Notice, ECF No. 9. That deadline has passed and Bell has not responded in any 12 manner whatsoever. 13 It is well established that district courts have the authority to dismiss an action based on a 14 party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. Fed. 15 R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 16 with local rule); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 17 comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 18 lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an 19 action on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 20 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 21 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 22 availability of less drastic alternatives. Ghazali,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 23 F.2d at 1423–24. 24 The first three factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation, the 25 court’s interest in managing its docket, and the risk of prejudice to defendants, weigh in favor of 26 dismissal. The Ninth Circuit has held that “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 1 |Ilitigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. California Amplifier,

(9th Cir. 1999). 2 Bell has failed to engage with this case in any way since August of 2022. See Summons, ECF 3 ||No. 7. And Bell failed to respond to the notice of intent to dismiss based on his failure to 4 ||prosecute. This lack of response clearly suggests that he does not intend to litigate this case 5 |/diligently or expeditiously. The court can discern no risk of prejudice to defendant Accessible 6 ||Space as it appears that it was not properly served with a copy of the summons and complaint. See 7 No. 8. 8 The fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, weighs Q dismissal. However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to 10 ||move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 11 |\direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d at 1228. 12 ||So, the fourth factor is greatly outweighed. 13 The fifth factor, the availability of less drastic sanctions, also weighs in favor of dismissal. 14 ||Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 15 ||must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson,

. A court’s warning 16 a party that their failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the 17 ||“consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992). 18 ||Such warning was given here. See Notice, ECF No. 9. Thus, the fifth factor favors dismissal. 19 In sum, the factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Considering the dismissal factors and 20 Rule 41-1, which allows for the dismissal of civil actions pending for more than 270 days 21 || without any proceeding of record, I find that dismissal is warranted. Bell has abandoned his 22 ||prosecution of this matter. It is therefore ordered that Bell’s claims are dismissed without 23 ||prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to close wee 24 Dated: May 14, 2024 / / 25 LY. —— 26 nye Judge