1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ROBBYJOE V. YABUT, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01088-APG-EJY

4 Plaintiff Order

5 v.

6 GARY S. MCLAUGHLIN, et al.,

7 Defendants

8

9 Plaintiff Robbyjoe V. Yabut brings this civil-rights action under

to 10 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Clark County 11 Detention Center. ECF No. 1-1. On December 23, 2024, I ordered Yabut to file an amended 12 complaint by January 24, 2025. ECF No. 4. I warned Yabut that the action could be dismissed if 13 he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline.

. That deadline expired, and 14 Yabut did not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 15 Furthermore, the order came back as undeliverable to the last address that Yabut provided to the 16 court. ECF No. 6. I note that the court’s advisory letter, which was sent to Yabut after he 17 initiated this action, informed him that he should immediately file a notification with the court of 18 any change of address. ECF No. 2 at 1. 19 I. Discussion 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 21 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 22 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 23 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 1 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 2 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. 3 Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 4 order). In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, I must consider:

5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 6 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 7 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 8 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

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

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

(9th Cir. 1976). The

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

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

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive 22 force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives 23 prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial 1}| granting of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have 2|| been “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 3|| finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 5} until and unless Yabut files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate 8|| that this case will be an exception. Because Yabut has not filed his current address with the court, the odds of him even receiving a second order setting another deadline is low. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. Conclusion 12 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of dismissal. I THEREFORE ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 14|| Yabut’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with my December 23, 2024, order. 15|| The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 16|| documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Yabut wishes to pursue his claims, he must 17|| file a complaint in a new case. 18 I FURTHER ORDER that Yabut’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) DENIED as moot. 20 21 Dated: February 10, 2025 22 Z- _ Andrew P. Gordon 23 Chief United States District Judge