UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 GEORGE KARP, Case No. 2:25-cv-01912-ART-BNW 3 Plaintiff, ORDER 4 v.

5 ALONZO, et al.,

6 Defendants.

7 8 Plaintiff George Karp brings this civil-rights action under

9 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while confined at 10 High Desert State Prison. (ECF No. 1-1.) On October 14, 2025, this Court ordered 11 Plaintiff to file his complaint using the correct form for federal court and file his 12 updated address by November 10, 2025. (ECF No. 4.) That deadline expired 13 without an updated address from Plaintiff, and his mail from the Court is being 14 returned as undeliverable. (See ECF Nos. 3, 5.) 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 L.A., 782

, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 20 failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856

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

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

(9th Cir. 2006) 4 (quoting Malone,

). 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 6 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 7 dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 8 also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 9 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 10 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 11 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 12 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 14 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 15 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 16 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 17 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 19 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 20 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 22 without a proper complaint and the ability for the Court and the defendants to 23 send Plaintiff case-related documents, filings, and orders, the only alternative is 24 to enter a second order setting another deadline. But without an updated 25 address, the likelihood that the second order would even reach Plaintiff is low, 26 so issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander the 27 Court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative 1 || given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. Il. CONCLUSION 3 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 4 || they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 5 || dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to file his complaint using 6 || the correct form for federal court and file his updated address in compliance with 7 || the Court’s October 14, 2025, order. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to 8 || enter judgment accordingly and close this case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his 9 || claims, he must file a complaint on the proper form and provide the Court with 10 || his current address in a new case. 11 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis 12 || (ECF No. 1) and motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-2) are denied as 13 || moot. 14 DATED: November 25, 2025. 15 16 Ans jlosed 1m 17 ANNE R. TRAUM 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28