2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 QUASHAWN SHERIDAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00877-MMD-MDC

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

11 12 Plaintiff Quashawn Sheridan brings this civil rights action under

13 to redress constitutional violations he allegedly suffered while incarcerated at Northern 14 Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1-1.) On May 28, 2025, the Court ordered 15 Sheridan to either pay the full $405 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma 16 pauperis (“IFP”) by July 28, 2025. (ECF No. 3.) The Court warned Sheridan this action 17 could be dismissed if he failed to timely comply. (Id. at 2.) That deadline expired, and 18 Sheridan did not pay the filing fee, apply for IFP status, 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 the court apprised of address); see also Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

, 26 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining 27 whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 28 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 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 Sheridan’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 a 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). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 18 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 19 Duncan,

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed until 20 Sheridan addresses the matter of the filing fee, the only alternative is to enter a second 21 order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often 22 only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances 23 here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline is not a 24 meaningful alternative given these circumstances. Therefore, the fifth factor favors 25 dismissal. 26 Having thoroughly considered these factors, the Court finds that they weigh in 27 favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice 28 based on Sheridan’s failure to address the matter of the filing fee in compliance with the 1 || Court's May 28, 2025 order. 2 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 3 || No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Sheridan wishes to pursue 4 || his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the filing fee or apply to 5 || proceed IFP. 6 DATED THIS 4" Day of August 2025. 7 8

10 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28