1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JACOB ANGELO MASSEY, Case No. 3:25-cv-00300-ART-CSD

4 Plaintiff, DISMISSAL ORDER v. 5 DARIN BALAAM, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff Jacob Angelo Massey brings this civil-rights action under 42

to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while 10 incarcerated. (ECF No. 1-1). On September 23, 2025, this Court ordered Plaintiff 11 to update his address by October 23, 2025. (ECF No. 5). That deadline expired 12 without a response from Plaintiff. 13 DISCUSSION 14 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 15 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 16 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 17 Angeles,

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

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

(9th Cir. 1987) 22 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 23 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 24 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 25 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 26 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 27 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

, 1 Cir. 1987)). 2 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 3 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 4 dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 5 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 6 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 7 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

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

, 13 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 14 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 15 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 16 “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted 17 pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as 18 satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 19 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 20 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 21 finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 22 alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). 23 Because this action cannot realistically proceed without the ability for the Court 24 and the defendants to send Plaintiff case-related documents, filings, and orders, 25 the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But 26 without an updated address, the likelihood that the second order would even 27 reach Plaintiff is low, so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and 1 || meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors 2 || dismissal. 3 || II. CONCLUSION 4 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 5 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 6 || dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address 7 || in compliance with this Court’s September 23, 2025, order. The Clerk of Court 8 || is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other 9 || documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his 10 || claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and provide the Court with his 11 || current address. 12 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis 13 || (ECF No. 4) is denied as moot. 14 15 DATED: November 4, 2025 16 17

19 ANNE R. TRAUM 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28