2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JAMES ANTHONY DAVIS, Case No. 2:24-cv-01832-GMN-DJA

4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE 5 v.

6 THE STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

7 Defendants.

8 This action began with a pro se civil-rights complaint filed under

by an 9 inmate at Clark County Detention Center. On October 21, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff James 10 Davis to file his updated address by November 20, 2024. (ECF No. 4). That deadline expired 11 without compliance or any other response from Davis, and the Court’s mail to him is being 12 returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 5). 13 I. DISCUSSION 14 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 15 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 16 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 17 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. 18 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 19 with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack 20 of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action 21 on these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 22 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 23 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 24 drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 25 2006) (quoting Malone,

). 26 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 27 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Davis’s claims. The third 28 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 1 |) iyury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. 2 || Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring 3 || disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 4 The fifth factor requires this Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 5 || to correct the party’s failure that brought about the need to consider dismissal. Yourish v. Cal. 6 || Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives 7 || before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. 8 || Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short 9 || of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 10 |} alternatives.” Henderson,

. Because this action cannot realistically proceed 11 |} without the ability for the Court and the defendants to send Davis case-related documents, filings, 12 |} and orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But without an 13 |} updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach Davis is low, so issuing a 14 || second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the Court’s finite resources. 15 Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, the 16 || fifth factor favors dismissal. Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds 17 || that they weigh in favor of dismissal. 18 || IL. CONCLUSION 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED without prejudice 20 || based on the plaintiffs failure to file his updated address in compliance with the Court’s order. 21 |} The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS 22 |} CASE. If James Davis wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and 23 || provide his updated address to the Court. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 25 || No. 1) is DENIED as moot. 26 DATED this 15 dayof _ January __, 2025. 27 28 Gloria M/Navarro, District Judge UNITE fTATES DISTRICT COURT

Ynf2