Opinion
Case No. 3:19-cv-00155-MMD-WGC
01-14-2020
JUSTIN ODELL LANGFORD, Plaintiff, v. JAMES DZURENDA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Justin Odell Langford is an incarcerated person in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections who has filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff submitted an unsigned complaint to the Court. (ECF No. 1-1.) On March 22, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a signed complaint within 30 days and warned him that failure to timely comply with that order may result in dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 7 at 2). Plaintiff then filed yet another unsigned complaint. (ECF No. 10.)
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. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 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. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 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 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and 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. See 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.
Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public's interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court's interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since 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 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors weighing in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court's warning to a party that his failure to obey that court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the "consideration of alternatives" requirement. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court's order requiring Plaintiff to file a signed amended complaint within 30 days expressly stated that failure to timely comply with the order may result in dismissal of the action. (ECF No. 7 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court's order to file a signed complaint within thirty days.
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's March 22, 2019 order and for failure to file a signed complaint. The dismissal is without prejudice to allow Plaintiff to file a signed complaint in a new action.
It is further ordered that the all pending applications and motions (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 12, and 15) are denied as moot.
The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
DATED THIS 14th day of January 2020.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE