Opinion
2:17-cv-02374-JAD-PAL
11-03-2017
Romario Winslow, Plaintiff v. James Dzurenda, et al., Defendants
Order Dismissing Case
On September 26, 2017, Magistrate Judge Leen ordered pro se plaintiff Romario Winslow to file a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $400.00 filing fee within 30 days. Judge Leen also informed Winslow that his failure to file a completed pauper application or pay the filing fee would result in dismissal of this action. The 30-day deadline has now expired, and Winslow has not complied with or otherwise responded to Judge Leen's order.
ECF No. 4 at 2.
Id.
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. Finally, 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, and Judge Leen warned Winslow that dismissal would result from his noncompliance.
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. 4 at 2. --------
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Winslow's failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $400 filing fee in compliance with Judge Leen's September 26, 2017, order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.
DATED: November 3, 2017.
/s/_________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge