2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 DARRIANA HUMPHREY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00456-GMN-EJY

6 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE 7 v.

8 COUNTY OF HENDERSON, et al.,

9 Defendants.

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

by an 11 inmate housed at Henderson Detention Center. On December 20, 2024, the Court screened the 12 First Amended Complaint, dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with leave to amend by January 21, 2025. 13 (ECF No. 17 at 11). The Court warned Plaintiff that this action would be subject to dismissal 14 without prejudice if she did not file an amended complaint by that deadline. (Id.). But that deadline 15 expired without an amended complaint or other response from Plaintiff. 16 I. DISCUSSION 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 18 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 19 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 20 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. 21 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 22 with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack 23 of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action 24 on these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 25 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 26 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 27 drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 28 2006) (quoting Malone,

). ] The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 2 || Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiffs claims. The third 3 || factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 4 || injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. 5 || Air West,

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

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

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short 12 || of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 13 || alternatives.” Henderson,

. Because this action cannot proceed without Plaintiff 14 || filing an amended complaint and litigation cannot progress without Plaintiffs compliance with the 15 |} Court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But 16 || repeating an ignored order often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite 17 || resources. There is no indication that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline is 18 |} not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, the fifth factor favors dismissal. 19 |) IL. CONCLUSION 20 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 21 || favor of dismissal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED 22 || without prejudice based on the plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with 23 || the Court’s December 20, 2024, order, and for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is 24 || directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. If Darriana Humphrey 25 || wishes to pursue her claims, she must file a complaint in a new case, and either apply for in forma 26 || pauperis status or pay the required filing fee for that action. 27 || DATED: | February 12, 2025 28 GLORIA M. NAVARRO UNI STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Inf?