1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ALEJANDRO CABRAL-GABRIEL, Case No. 2:25-cv-00595-GMN-BNW

4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 5 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, 6 et al.,

7 Defendants.

8 9 Plaintiff Alejandro Cabral-Gabriel brings this civil-rights lawsuit under

10 to redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while detained at Clark County 11 Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1). On April 9, 2025, the Court ordered Cabral-Gabriel to either 12 pay the full $405 filing fee or file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis on or before 13 May 9, 2025. (ECF No. 3). That deadline expired without any response by Cabral-Gabriel. 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,

, 1440–41 (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. Postal 21 Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In 22 determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 23 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 24 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 25 1 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 2 Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

). 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 4 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. The 5 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 6 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered 7 by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). 8 The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly 9 outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 10 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 11 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 12 v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 13 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 14 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every 15 sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and 16 meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because 17 this Court cannot operate without collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without 18 Cabral-Gabriel’s compliance with the Court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order 19 setting another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the inevitable and 20 further squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this 21 case will be an exception. 22 Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, the 23 fifth factor favors dismissal. Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds 24 that they weigh in favor of dismissal. 25 OL CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on the 3 || plaintiffs failure to address the matter of the filing fee in compliance with the Court’s order. The 4 || Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 5 || documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Alejandro Cabral-Gabriel wishes to pursue his 6 || claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and address the matter of the filing fee. 7 8 DATED this 16 dayof___ May __, 2025. Vf, ; Gf 4, 10 Gloria M. paar District Judge United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25