1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2

3 Paul McCreary, Case No. 2:25-cv-01475-CDS-NJK

4 Plaintiff Order Dismissing and Closing Case

5 v.

6 James Dzurenda,

7 Defendant

8 9 On September 11, 2025, I ordered plaintiff Paul McCreary to file a complaint and to either 10 pay the full $405 filing fee or file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis by October 31, 11 2025. ECF No. 3. That deadline has expired without any response by McCreary. 12 I. Discussion 13 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 14 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 15 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an 16 action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 17

, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 18 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

, 19 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 20 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 21 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 22 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 23 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

). 25 26 1 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 2 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of McCreary’s claims. The third 3 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 4 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 5 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air W., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 6 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 7 the factors favoring dismissal. 8 The fifth factor requires me to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to 9 correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. 10 Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives 11 before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 12

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal 13 before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 14 Duncan,

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed without a 15 complaint, the court cannot operate without collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot 16 progress without McCreary’s compliance with the court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter a 17 second order setting another deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the 18 inevitable and further squanders the court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not 19 indicate that this case will be an exception. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful 20 alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 21 II. Conclusion 22 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they weigh in favor of 23 dismissal. I therefore order that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on McCreary’s 24 failure to file a complaint and address the matter of the filing fee in compliance with my order. 25 26 1 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No 2 documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If McCreary wishes to pursue his claims, he 3 |/must file a complaint in a new case and address the matter of elfiling fee. 4 Dated: November 5, 2025

6 Cristina ]¥ Silva Uni dstates District Judge

8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26