Opinion
2:17-cv-02028-JAD-NJK
10-31-2017
Jason Altheide, Plaintiff v. State of Nevada et al., Defendants
Order Dismissing Case
Pro se plaintiff Jason Altheide is serving two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole after he was convicted as a habitual criminal. He filed this civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with an incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis, and Magistrate Judge Koppe allowed Altheide until October 20, 2017, to file a completed pauper application or pay the full $400 filing fee to avoid having this case dismissed. The deadline has now expired, and Altheide has not filed a completed application, paid the filing fee, or otherwise responded to the court's order.
See ECF No. 1-1 at 1; see also NEV. DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, http://doc.nv.gov/Inmates/Home (Last visited Oct. 31, 2017) (click on "Inmate Search" and then search by name for Jason Altheide or by offender ID 1169889).
ECF No. 1.
ECF Nos. 3, 7.
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 . . . dismissal" of a case. A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (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.
Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
I find that the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The risk-of-prejudice factor 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. The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal, and a court's warning to a party that his failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the "consideration of alternatives" requirement. Judge Koppe warned Altheide that if he did not comply with her order, "dismissal of this action may result." He did not comply, so dismissal is appropriate.
See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.
ECF No. 7 at 2. --------
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Altheide's ability to file a new § 1983 civil-rights complaint along with a completed pauper application or the $400 filing fee.
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
DATED: October 31, 2017.
/s/_________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge