1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 TYRONE NOEL NUNN, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01322-APG-BNW

4 Plaintiff Order

5 v.

6 ELY STATE PRISON, et al.,

7 Defendants

8

9 Plaintiff Tyrone Noel Nunn brings this civil-rights action under

. ECF 10 No. 1-1. On October 30, 2024, I ordered Nunn to file an amended complaint by December 4, 11 2024. ECF No. 3. I warned Nunn that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an 12 amended complaint by that deadline.

. That deadline expired, and Nunn did not file an 13 amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 14 I. Discussion 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 16 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 17 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 18 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 19 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 20 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. 21 Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 22 order). In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, I must consider: 23 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 1 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 2 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 3 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 4

).

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

(9th Cir. 1976). The 10 fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly 11 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 court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 14 v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic

15 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 16 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive 17 force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives 18 prior to disobedience of the court’s order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial 19 granting of leave to amend coupled with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have 20 been “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 21 finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 22 Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 23 until and unless Nunn 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 3}| that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Nunn needs additional time or evidence 4|| that he did not receive the screening order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 5} alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. Having thoroughly 6]| considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of dismissal. II. Conclusion 8 I THEREFORE ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Nunn’s 9|| failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with my October 30, 2024, order. The Clerk 10|| of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may 11|| be filed in this now-closed case. If Nunn wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in 12||a new case. 13 I FURTHER ORDER that Nunn’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) DENIED as moot. 15 16 Dated: May 14, 2025 17 Andrew P. Gordon 18 Chief United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23