1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 TYRONE NOEL NUNN, Case No. 2:24-cv-02245-GMN-MDC

4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 5 NDOC, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Tyrone Noel Nunn brings this civil-rights lawsuit under

to 9 redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while incarcerated. On September 5, 10 2025, the Court ordered Nunn to file an amended complaint by October 6, 2025. (ECF No. 5 at 5). 11 The Court warned Nunn that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint 12 by that deadline. (Id.) That deadline expired and Nunn did not file an amended complaint, move 13 for an extension, or otherwise respond. 14 I. DISCUSSION 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 16 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 17 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 18 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 19 Carey v. King,

, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 20 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 21 Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In 22 determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 23 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 24 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 25 1 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 2 Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

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

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 8 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 9 the factors favoring dismissal. 10 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 11 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 12 v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 13 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 14 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every 15 sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and 16 meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because 17 this action cannot realistically proceed until and unless Nunn files an amended complaint, the only 18 alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an 19 ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. 20 The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that 21 Nunn needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s screening order. Setting 22 another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor 23 favors dismissal. 24 /// 25 /// 1 |) IL. CONCLUSION 2 It is therefore Ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Nunn’s 3 || failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s September 5, 2025, Order 4 || and for failure to state aclaim. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly 5 || and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Nunn wishes to 6 || pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 7 It is further Ordered that Nunn's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) 8 || without having to prepay the full filing fee is granted. Plaintiff will not be required to pay an 9 || initial installment fee, but the full filing fee will still be due, under

, even though 10 || this action is dismissed and is otherwise unsuccessful. 11 It is further Ordered that, under

, the Nevada Department of Corrections 12 || will forward payments from the account of Tyrone Noel Nunn, #1252474 to the Clerk of the 13 || United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits (in months 14 || that the account exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The 15 |) Clerk of the Court will send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. The 16 || Clerk will send a copy of this order to the Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of 17 || Corrections at formapauperis @ doc.nv.gov. 18 19 DATED: October 15, 2025. 20 1 Gloria M. arro, District Judge United States’District Court 22 23 24 25