1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 DERRICK BRADLEY, Case No. 2:25-cv-01753-GMN-DJA

4 Plaintiff ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE 5 v.

6 JAMES DZURENDA, et al.,

7 Defendants

8

9 10 Plaintiff Derrick Bradley filed this civil-rights action under

to 11 redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered at High Desert State Prison. 12 On October 2, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the full $405 filing fee or file 13 a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis by December 1, 2025. (ECF No. 3.) 14 That deadline expired without any response by Plaintiff. 15 16 I. DISCUSSION 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 18 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 19 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A.,

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

(9th Cir. 1988) 22 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to update 23 their address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 24 dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss an 25 action 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) the risk 27 of prejudice to the Defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 28 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 1 Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

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

, 7 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 8 their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 9 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 10 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 11 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 12 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 13 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th 14 Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 15 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 16 Duncan,

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this Court cannot operate without 17 collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without Plaintiff’s compliance 18 with the Court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter another order setting another 19 deadline. But repeating an ignored order often only delays the inevitable and further 20 squander the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this 21 case will be an exception. 22 Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 23 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. Having thoroughly considered these 24 dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of dismissal. 25 26 II. CONCLUSION 27 It is therefore Ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s 28 failure to address the matter of the filing fee in compliance with the Court’s Order. 1 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint and address the 3| matter of the filing fee in a new case. 4 5 DATED: December 10, 2025 6 Gloria avarro, Judge United (States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-