2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 CHRISTOPHER SEBELIUS, Case No. 3:24-cv-00563-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ROYAL, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 12 Plaintiff Christopher Sebelius brings this civil rights action under

13 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Ely 14 State Prison. (ECF No. 8.) On May 2, 2025, this Court ordered Sebelius to file an 15 amended complaint by June 1, 2025. (ECF No. 7.) The Court warned Sebelius that the 16 action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline. (Id. 17 at 9.) That deadline expired, and Sebelius did not file an amended complaint, move for 18 an extension, or otherwise respond. 19 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 20 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 21 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 22 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 23 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 24 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 25 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th 26 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 27 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 28 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 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 4 Malone,

). 5 The first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 6 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket-- weigh in favor of dismissal of Sebelius’s 7 claims. The third factor—risk of prejudice to defendants—also weighs in favor of dismissal 8 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 9 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542

, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 11 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 13 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 14 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 15 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 16 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th 17 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 18 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 19 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 20 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 21 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 22 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 24 unless Sebelius files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second 25 order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often 26 only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances 27 here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. There is no hint that Sebelius 28 needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening order. 1 || Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. 2 || Therefore, the fifth factor favors dismissal. 3 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 4 || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 5 || prejudice based on Sebelius’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this 6 || Court's May 2, 2025 order and for his failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is directed 7 || to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in 8 || this now-closed case. If Sebelius wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in 9 || anew case. 10 It is further ordered that Sebelius’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 11 || No. 6) is denied as moot. 12 DATED THIS 23 Day of June 2025. AGA- 14 MIRANDA M. DU 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28