1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 JAMES ARTHUR SMITH, JR., Case No. 3:25-cv-00177-ART-CLB

6 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 7 MEDICAL DIRECTOR, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Plaintiff James Smith brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 11 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while 12 incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1-1). On April 7, 13 2025, this Court ordered Smith to either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a 14 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-inmates by May 7, 15 2025. (ECF No. 4). That deadline expired without any response by Smith. 16 DISCUSSION 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 18 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 19 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 20 Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 21 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 22 King,

, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 23 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 24 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) 25 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 26 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 27 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 1 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 2 drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

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

(9th Cir. 10 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 11 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 13 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 14 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 15 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 16 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 18 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 19 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this Court cannot operate without 21 collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without Smith’s 22 compliance with the Court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order 23 setting another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the 24 inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources along the way. The 25 circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting 26 another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So 27 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 the plaintiffs failure to address the matter 5 || of the filing fee in compliance with the Court’s order. The Clerk of Court is kindly 6 || directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents 7 || may be filed in this now-closed case. If James Smith wishes to pursue his claims, 8 || he must file a complaint in a new case and address the matter of the filing fee. 9 It is further ordered that the motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF 10 || No. 1-3) is denied as moot. 11 DATED: May 29, 2025. 12 13 een Fue Wassud? 15 ANNER.TRAUM 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28