Julian Duran v. John Henley, et al.

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * JULIAN DURAN, Case No. 3:25-cv-00086-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. JOHN HENLEY, et al., Defendants.

11 Pro se Plaintiff Julian Duran brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 6.) The Court screened the Complaint, dismissed the complaint in its entirety, and granted leave to amend. (ECF No. 5.) On December 5, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by January 5, 2026. (ECF No. 9.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the action would be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint by that deadline. (Id. at 1.) That deadline expired and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, move for another extension, or otherwise respond.

20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .

22 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130).

6 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 11 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.

13 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed until Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter another order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception, as there is no hint that Plaintiff needs additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s prior orders. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal.

1 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they || weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without || prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with the || Court’s prior orders and for failure to state a claim. 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 in a new case.

7 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF || No. 1, 4) is granted. Plaintiff is not required to pay an initial installment fee, but the full || $350 filing fee will still be paid in installments under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, even though this || action is dismissed and otherwise unsuccessful.

11 It is further ordered that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Nevada Department of || Corrections will forward payments from the account of JULIAN DURAN, #1282741 to the || Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, at a rate of 20% of the || preceding month’s deposits (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) until the full || $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of Court is further requested to || send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office and to the Chief of || Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections at || [email protected].

19 DATED THIS 15" Day of January 2026.

MIRANDA M. DU 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE