1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 GLENN GREEN, Case No. 3:25-cv-00264-ART-CLB

4 Plaintiff, DISMISSAL ORDER v. 5 JAMES DZURENDA, ET AL., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Glenn Green brings this civil-rights action under

9 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated. 10 (ECF No. 1-1). On September 15, 2025, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file an 11 amended complaint by October 15, 2025. (ECF No. 6 at 5.) The Court warned 12 Plaintiff that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an amended 13 complaint by that deadline. (Id. at 6.) That deadline expired and Plaintiff did 14 not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 15 DISCUSSION 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 17 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 18 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 19 Angeles,

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

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

(9th Cir. 1987) 24 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 25 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 26 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 27 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 1 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

, 2 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th 3 Cir. 1987)). 4 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 5 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 6 dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 7 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 8 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 9 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 10 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 11 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 13 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 14 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 15 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 16 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 17 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 18 “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted 19 pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as 20 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 22 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 23 finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 24 alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). 25 Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and unless Plaintiff files 26 an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 27 another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often 1 || circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is 2 || no hint that Plaintiff needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive 3 || the Court’s screening order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 4 || alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 5 || II. CONCLUSION 6 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 7 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 8 || dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended 9 || complaint in compliance with this Court’s September 15, 2025, order. The Clerk 10 || of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 11 |} documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his 12 || claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 13 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis 14 || (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot. 15 16 DATED: October 28, 2025. 17 18 19 Awe jlosed jen 20 ANNER.TRAUM 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28