2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 KYLE P. CALHOUN, Case No. 3:24-cv-00421-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, DISMISSAL ORDER v. 8 BRAD POPE, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 12 Plaintiff Kyle Calhoun brings this civil rights action under

to 13 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while detained at Lyon County 14 Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1.) On June 3, 2025, the Court, in its second order 15 granting Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, ordered 16 Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by July 3, 2025. (ECF No. 9 at 2.) The Court warned 17 Plaintiff that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by 18 that deadline. (Id.) The deadline expired, and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, 19 move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 21 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 22 dismissal” of a case. See Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 23 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a 24 court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King,

(9th 25 Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs 26 to keep court apprised of address); see also Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

, 27 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 28 whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 2 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 3 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 4 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 5 Malone,

). 6 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 7 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s 8 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 9 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 10 a pleading ordered by the Court or from prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 11

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

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

, 643 & n.4 (9th 18 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 19 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 20 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 21 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 22 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 23 case but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 25 unless Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order 26 setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 27 delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 28 do not indicate that this case will be an exception. There is no hint that Plaintiff needs 1 || additional time nor is there evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening order. 2 || Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. Thus, 3 || the fifth factor favors dismissal. 4 Having thoroughly considered these factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 5 || favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice 6 || based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s 7 || June 3, 2025 order and for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter 8 || judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now- 9 || closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new 10 || case. 11 DATED THIS 16" Day of July 2025. 12 13 a ( MIRANDA M. DU 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28