1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Larry Booker, Case No. 2:24-cv-01616-CDS-EJY

5 Plaintiff Dismissal Order 6 v.

7 Lt. Rivera, et al.,

8 Defendants

9 10 Pro se plaintiff Larry Booker brings this civil-rights action under

to 11 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High Desert 12 State Prison. ECF No. 1-1. On December 20, 2024, this court denied Booker’s application to 13 proceed in forma pauperis for inmates as moot and ordered Booker to file an application to proceed 14 in forma pauperis for non-inmates or pay the full $405 filing fee on or before January 31, 2025. ECF 15 No. 5. The court warned Booker that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file a fully 16 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-inmates or pay the full $405 filing fee for 17 a civil action by that deadline.

. That deadline expired and Booker did not file an application 18 to proceed in forma pauperis for non-inmates, pay the full $405 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 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 dismiss an 23 action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 24

, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 25 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether 27 to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 1 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 2 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 3 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and 6 the court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Booker’s claims. The 7 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 8 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 9 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 10 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is 11 greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to 13 correct the party’s failure that brought about the need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. 14 Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives 15 before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 16

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of 17 dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 18 Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because this court cannot operate without 19 collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without a plaintiff’s compliance with 20 court orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But issuing a 21 second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the court’s finite resources. 22 Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth 23 factor favors dismissal. Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they 24 weigh in favor of dismissal. 25 26 27 1 Conclusion 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 3 ||Booker’s failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-inmates or pay the full 4 ||$405 filing fee in compliance with this court’s December 20, 2024, order. The Clerk of Court is 5 ||directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in 6 ||this now-closed case. If Booker wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case 7 either pay the required filing fee or properly apply for in forma pauperis status. 8 Dated: February 10,2025 J, / 9 wxigh Cristifa BrSis 10 Unit, states District Judge ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28