1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Tyrone Noel Nunn, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01844-APG-BNW

4 Plaintiff Order

5 v.

6 Ely State Prison, et al.,

7 Defendants

8

9 Plaintiff Tyrone Nunn brings this civil-rights action under

to redress 10 constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Ely State Prison. ECF 11 No. 1-1. On October 3, 2024, the magistrate judge ordered Nunn to file a fully complete 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) or pay the full $405 filing fee for a civil action on 13 or before October 24, 2024. ECF No. 3. The magistrate judge warned Nunn that the action could 14 be dismissed if he failed to timely comply.

That deadline expired without Nunn paying the 15 full filing fee or filing a complete IFP application. Rather, Nunn filed two documents titled “in 16 forma pauperis” that state simply “28 U.S.C. § 1915a.” ECF Nos. 4, 5. 17 I. Discussion 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 19 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 20 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 21 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 22 Carey v. King,

, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 23 with local rule 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 1 order). In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, I must consider: 2 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 3 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 4 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re

5 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 6

). 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 8 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Nunn’s claims. The third 9 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption 10 of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the 11 court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The 12 fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly 13 outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 14 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to

15 correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 16 v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 17 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 18 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every 19 sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and 20 meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because 21 this court cannot operate without collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress 22 without a plaintiff’s compliance with court orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order 23 setting another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the inevitable and further squanders the court’s finite resources. Nunn has filed over 80 pro se lawsuits in this 2|| district since July 2023.' Dozens of these lawsuits have been dismissed because, like here, Nunn 3|| failed to correct fundamental defects with them despite being ordered to do so. See, e.g., Nunn v. Dep ’t of Corr., Case No. 3:24-cv-00050-ART-CLB, ECF No. 4 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2024) (collecting cases). Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 6|| circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 7) II. Conclusion 8 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Tyrone Nunn’s failure to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 11|| filing fee in compliance with the magistrate judge’s October 3, 2024, order. The Clerk of Court directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed 13]|1n this now-closed case. If Tyrone Nunn wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in 14|| a new case and either pay the required filing fee or file a complete application to proceed in 15|| forma pauperis. 16 17 Dated: January 16, 2025 18 ZG — Chief United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 1 take judicial notice of the online docket records of the U.S. Courts, which may be accessed by the public at: https://pacer.uscourts.gov.