1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ANTHONY BAILEY, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01922-APG-NJK

4 Plaintiff Order

5 v.

6 JULIE WILLIAMS, et al.,

7 Defendants

8

9 Plaintiff Anthony Bailey brings this civil-rights action under

to redress 10 constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High Desert State 11 Prison. ECF No. 4. On September 9, 2025, I denied Bailey’s application to proceed in forma 12 pauperis (IFP) and ordered him to do one of two things by October 10, 2025—either pay the full 13 $405 filing fee for a civil action or file a complete IFP application that shows he qualifies for 14 pauper status. ECF No. 13. I warned Bailey that the action could be dismissed if he failed to 15 timely comply.

. That deadline expired without Bailey paying the full filing fee or filing a 16 complete IFP application. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 18 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 19 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A.,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 20 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 21 Carey v. King,

, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 22 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. 23 Postal Serv.,

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

5 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 6

). 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 Bailey’s claims. The third 9 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption 10 of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the 11 court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The 12 fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly 13 outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 14 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to

15 correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish 16 v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic 17 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 18 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every 19 sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and 20 meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because 21 this action cannot realistically proceed until and unless Bailey either pays the $405 filing fee or 22 files a complete IFP application that shows he qualifies for pauper status, the only alternative is 23 to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the court’s finite resources. The 2|| circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting a second deadline not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 4 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of dismissal. 6 I THEREFORE ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Bailey’s 7|| failure to pay the $405 filing fee or file a complete IFP application that shows he qualifies for pauper status in compliance with my September 9, 2025, order. The Clerk of Court is directed to 9] enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now- 10|| closed case. If Bailey wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint and address the 11]| matter of the filing fee in a new case. 12 Dated: October 27, 2025

Chief United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23