2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 TYRONE NOEL NUNN, Case No. 2:24-cv-01091-GMN-NJK

4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE 5 v.

6 ELY STATE PRISON, et al.,

7 Defendants.

8 Plaintiff Tyrone Noel Nunn, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Nevada Department 9 of Corrections (“NDOC”) and assigned NDOC #1252474, has filed over 80 pro se lawsuits in this 10 district since July 2023.1 Dozens of these lawsuits have been dismissed because Nunn failed to 11 correct fundamental defects with them like filing a single, signed complaint and either paying the 12 filing fee or completing an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Like many of his 13 other lawsuits, Nunn initiated this action by filing a collection of documents that do not constitute 14 a single, signed complaint, and he neither paid the $405 filing fee nor applied for IFP status. (ECF 15 Nos. 1-1, 1). So, the magistrate judge ordered Nunn to correct both defects by August 13, 2024. 16 (ECF No. 3). 17 Nunn responded by filing a collection of documents that appears to contain eight 18 complaints and an IFP application. (ECF No. 4). He followed this with a document titled “in forma 19 pauperis” that simply states “28 U.S.C. § 1915a.” (ECF No. 5). Nunn complied with part of the 20 Court’s order, but he still has not filed a single, signed complaint that identifies the claims and 21 defendants he intends to pursue in this action and the relief he seeks. For the reasons discussed 22 below, this action is dismissed without prejudice, and Nunn is cautioned that future similarly 23 defective actions might be dismissed as frivolous. 24 I. DISCUSSION 25 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 26 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 27

28 1 The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the U.S. Courts, which 2 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. 3 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 4 with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack 5 of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action 6 on these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 7 litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 8 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 9 drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 10 2006) (quoting Malone,

). 11 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 12 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Nunn’s claims. The third 13 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 14 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. 15 Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring 16 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 17 The fifth factor requires this Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 18 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the need to consider dismissal. Yourish v. Cal. 19 Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives 20 before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. 21 Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short 22 of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 23 alternatives.” Henderson,

. Because this action cannot proceed without Nunn 24 filing a single, signed complaint, and this litigation cannot progress without Nunn’s compliance 25 with the Court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. 26 But Nunn has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unable or unwilling to correct fundamental 27 defects with many of his lawsuits. See, e.g., Nunn v. Dep’t of Corr., Case No. 3:24-cv-00050-ART- 28 CLB, ECF No. 4 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2024) (collecting cases). And this case is no exception. ] Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, the 2 || fifth factor favors dismissal. Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds 3 || that they weigh in favor of dismissal. || Il. CONCLUSION 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED without prejudice 6 || based on the plaintiffs failure to file a single, signed complaint in compliance with the Court’s 7 || order. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS 8 || CASE. If Tyrone Nunn wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a single, signed complaint in a 9 || new case, and either apply for in forma pauperis status or pay the required filing fee for that action. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4 11 |} at 20-32) is DENIED as moot. 12 13 DATED this 10 dayof January __, 2025. Vf, Wh 15 Gloria rates District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2Af2