DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 Billy Ray Jones, Jr., Case No. 2:24-cv-01686-CDS-DJA

4 Plaintiff Order Dismissing and Closing Case 5 v.

6 Clark County Detention Center, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 9 Plaintiff Billy Jones brings this civil-rights action under

to redress 10 constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while housed at Clark County Detention 11 Center. ECF No. 1-1. On September 30, 2024, the magistrate judge ordered Jones to either pay the 12 full $405 filing fee or file an in forma pauperis application for non-inmates by October 30, 2024. ECF 13 No. 4. That deadline expired without payment of the filing fee, an application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis, or other response from Jones. 15 I. Discussion 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 17 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 18 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an 19 action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 20

, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 21 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

, 22 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 23 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, courts must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 24 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 25 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 26 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

). 28 1 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and 2 ||the court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Jones’s claims. The third 3 || factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 4 ||injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 5 || prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 6 ||factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 7 || the factors favoring dismissal. 8 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to 9 ||correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. 10 ||Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 1] ||alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 12 || Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every 13 ||sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and 14 ||meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because this 15 || court must collect reasonable fees from parties initiating civil actions, the only alternative is to 16 |/enter a second order setting another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the 17 ||inevitable and squanders the court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that 18 ||this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 19 ||circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 20 Conclusion 21 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 22 ||dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on the 23 || plaintiff's failure to address the matter of the filing fee in compliance with the court’s order. The 24 ||Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents 25 ||may be filed in this now-closed case. If Billy Jones wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a 26 ||complaint in a new case and either pay the filing fee or oSanplete an in forma pauperis application. 27 Dated: January 13, 2025 LZ 28 £ □□ □□□ Cristina D. Silva jos States District Judge