1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Ryan Woodson, Case No. 2:25-cv-01186-JAD-BNW

5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 v.

7 L.A. Wilshire Corp.,

8 Defendant.

9 10 Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Central District for the District of California and moved 11 to proceed in forma pauperis on a form approved by the Central District of California. ECF No. 12 1. It does not appear that the court ruled on his application. The case was then transferred to this 13 district. ECF No. 7. This Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to either file an application to 14 proceed in forma pauperis on this district’s approved form or pay the filing fee by August 1, 15 2025. ECF No. 3; see also LSR 1-1 (“The application must be made on the form provided by the 16 court and must include a financial affidavit disclosing the applicant’s income, assets, expenses, 17 and liabilities.”). The Clerk’s Office mailed Plaintiff that order along with the approved 18 application form to proceed in forma pauperis and the accompanying instructions and 19 information for doing so. ECF No. 11. That order warned Plaintiff that his case may be dismissed 20 for failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. Id. Plaintiff has 21 not done so, nor has he moved for an extension of time even though the deadline has passed. As a 22 result, this Court recommends that his case be dismissed without prejudice and closed. 23 The law permits a district court to dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute 24 his case or comply with a court order. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest 25 Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that courts may dismiss an action pursuant 26 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply 27 with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1 complaint). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the court must consider: (1) the public’s 2 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 3 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 4 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab.

F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

, 6 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 8 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The 9 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 10 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 11 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th 12 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits— 13 weighs against dismissal. 14 The fifth factor requires the court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 15 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. Courts 16 “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 17 explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1424 (9th 18 Cir. 1986). Because Plaintiff cannot proceed in this action cannot without filing an application to 19 proceed in forma pauperis or paying the filing fee, the only alternative is to enter a second order 20 setting another deadline. The circumstances here do not indicate that Plaintiff needs additional 21 time nor is there evidence that he did not receive this Court’s order. Setting another deadline is 22 not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, the fifth factor favors dismissal. 23 In balance, the factors above favor a recommendation of dismissal. See Hernandez v. City 24 of El Monte,

(9th Cir. 1998) (holdings dismissal is proper where least four factors 25 support dismissal or where at least three factors “strongly” support dismissal). 26 / / 27 / / 1 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED for 2 || failure file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee. 3 4 NOTICE 5 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 6 || to this case under

(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 7 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 8 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 9 || objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Yist,

, 10 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 12 DATED: August 14, 2025 13 14 LK pm la WEF 15 BRENDA WEKSLER 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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