1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Tyrone Noel Nunn, Case No. 2:24-cv-01090-CDS-BNW

5 Plaintiff Order Dismissing and Closing Case 6 v.

7 Ely State Prison, et al.,

8 Defendants

9 10 Plaintiff Tyrone Noel Nunn brings this civil-rights action under

to 11 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Ely State Prison. 12 On November 25, 2024, I ordered Nunn to file an amended complaint by December 27, 2024. ECF 13 No. 5 at 8. I warned Nunn that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended 14 complaint by that deadline.

. That deadline expired and Nunn did not file an amended 15 complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 16 I. Discussion 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 18 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 19 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an 20 action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 21

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 22 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether 24 to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 25 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 26 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 27 1 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

). 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and 4 the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissing Nunn’s claims. The third 5 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 6 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 7 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 8 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 9 the factors favoring dismissal. 10 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be 11 used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See 12 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 13 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 14 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force 15 of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to 16 disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave 17 to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 18 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 19 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

, 20 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and unless Nunn files 21 an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. 22 But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and 23 squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will 24 be an exception: there is no hint that Nunn needs additional time or evidence that he did not 25 receive my screening order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 26 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 27 1 Conclusion 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 3 ||dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Nunn’s 4 to file an amended complaint in compliance with my November 25, 2024, order. The Clerk of 5 ||Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be 6 in this now-closed case. If Nunn wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new 7 |jcase. 8 It is further ordered that Nunn’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) 9 without having to prepay the full filing fee is granted. Nunn will not be required to pay an initial 10 |/installment fee. Nonetheless, even though this action is dismissed and is otherwise unsuccessful, 11 full filing fee will still be due, pursuant to

. 12 It is further ordered that, pursuant to

, the Nevada Department of 13 ||Corrections will forward payments from the account of Tyrone Noel Nunn, #1252474 to the 14 ||Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month’s 15 ||deposits (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid 16 ||for this action. The Clerk of the Court will send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the 17 ||Clerk’s Office. The Clerk will send a copy of this order to the Chief of Inmate Services for the 18 || Nevada Department of Corrections at [email protected]. 19 Dated: January 10, 2025 /) 20 21 f f —_—— Cristin . Silva 22 Unio Sate District Judge 23 (

24 25 26 27 28