1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 8 KODY BRACE, Case No. 2:24-cv-02205-RFB-MDC

9 Plaintiff, ORDER

10 v.

11 JAMES DZURENDA, et al.,

12 Defendants. 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Plaintiff Kody Brace’s documents initiating this civil action contained an incomplete 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for the appointment of counsel, but Brace 17 did not submit a complaint. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1). On December 2, 2024, the Court ordered Brace to 18 file a signed complaint and either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a complete application to 19 proceed in forma pauperis by January 31, 2025. (ECF No. 3). That deadline expired without any 20 compliance or other response by Brace. 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 23 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 24 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 25 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 26 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 27 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 28 Service,

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

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

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

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 11 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 12 the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 14 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 15 v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 16 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 17 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every 18 sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and 19 meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because 20 this Court cannot operate without collecting reasonable fees and this action cannot proceed without 21 a signed complaint and Brace’s compliance with the Court’s Orders, the only alternative is to enter 22 a second order setting another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the 23 inevitable and further squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not 24 indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative 25 given these circumstances. So, the fifth factor favors dismissal. 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 28 favor of dismissal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without 1 | prejudice based on Kody Brace’s failure to file a signed complaint and address the matter of the filing fee in compliance with this Court’s December 2, 2024 Order. The Clerk of Court is kindly 3 | directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brace’s incomplete Application to proceed in forma 5 | pauperis (ECF No. 1) and Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 1-1) are denied as moot. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff Kody Brace may move to reopen this case 8 | and vacate the judgment by filing a motion for reconsideration of this Order. In the motion, Brace 9 | would need to explain the circumstances which led to him not being able to file a signed complaint 10 | and address the matter of the filing fee as directed by the Court. If the Court finds there is good 11 | cause or a reasonable explanation for the failure, the Court will reopen the case and vacate the 12 | judgment. 13 DATED: this 18th day of February, 2025 AS IS RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28