UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 TODD TONNOCHY, Case No. 3:24-cv-00375-ART-CSD 3 Plaintiff, ORDER 4 v.

5 BRADLEY LEWIS,

6 Defendants.

7 8 Plaintiff Todd Tonnochy brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 9 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 10 incarcerated at Washoe County Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1). On September 11 13, 2024, this Court ordered Tonnochy to file a fully complete application to 12 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee on or before November 13 15, 2024. (ECF No. 3). The Court warned Tonnochy that the action could be 14 dismissed if he failed to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $405 filing fee for a civil action 16 by that deadline. (Id. at 2). Tonnochy subsequently filed a notice of change of 17 address, indicating that he had been moved to Northern Nevada Correctional 18 Center, as well as two incomplete applications to proceed in forma pauperis, 19 including state court forms, rather than this Court’s approved forms. (ECF Nos. 20 4, 5, 6). 21 Because Tonnochy submitted two incomplete applications to proceed in 22 forma pauperis, the Court considered meaningful alternatives to dismissal, and 23 on December 4, 2024, the Court gave Tonnochy an extension until January 6, 24 2025, to submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 25 8).1 That extended deadline has expired, and Tonnochy still has not filed a fully 26 1 The Court is conducting a pilot program with a more streamlined process 27 1 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full $405 filing fee, 2 or otherwise responded to the Court’s order extending the deadline for him to file 3 a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. 4 I. DISCUSSION 5 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 6 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 7 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 8 Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 9 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 10 King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 11 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 12 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) 13 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 14 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 15 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 16 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 17 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 18 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

, 19 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th 20 Cir. 1987)). 21 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 22 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 23 dismissal of Tonnochy’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 24 for inmates at Northern Nevada Correctional Center to file applications to 25 proceed in forma pauperis. The Court’s December 4, 2024, order giving Tonnochy 26 one final opportunity to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, included the streamlined instructions and form for inmates at Northern Nevada 27 Correctional Center. (ECF No. 8-1). 1 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 2 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 3 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 4 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 5 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 6 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 7 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 8 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 9 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 10 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 11 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 12 “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted 13 pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as 14 satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 15 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 16 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 17 finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 18 alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). 19 Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and unless Tonnochy 20 either files a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the 21 $405 filing fee for a civil action, the only alternative is to enter a third order 22 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating two ignored orders is that 23 it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. 24 The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there 25 is no hint that Tonnochy needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive 26 the Court’s order. Setting a third deadline is not a meaningful alternative given 27 these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 1 || II. CONCLUSION 2 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 3 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 4 || dismissed without prejudice based on Tonnochy’s failure to file a fully complete 5 || application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee in 6 || compliance with this Court’s September 13, 2024, and December 4, 2024, 7 || orders. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 8 || this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Tonnochy 9 || wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 10 1 DATED THIS 11th day of February 2025.

12 Ar. jostd □□ 13 ANNE R. TRAUM 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27