Opinion
Case No. 2:19-cv-01182-JAD-NJK
04-14-2020
Emerson Leslie Plaintiff v. Jennifer Nash, et. al., Defendants
Order Dismissing and Closing Case
Plaintiff Emerson Leslie brings this civil-rights lawsuit to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections. Although he submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners, he has since been released from custody and the Court ordered him to file a new application to proceed IFP as a non-prisoner or pay the $400 filing fee by April 3, 2020. That deadline expired without a new application, payment of the filing fee, or any request to extend the deadline. Leslie was warned that his failure to timely comply with that order may result in the dismissal of this case.
ECF No. 6.
Id. at 2.
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 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 on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (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.
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 the 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. A court's warning to a party that its failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor's "consideration of alternatives" requirement, and that warning was given here. The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.
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. 6 at 2 ("if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, dismissal of this action may result."). --------
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED without prejudice based on the plaintiff's failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner or pay the filing fee as ordered. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Leslie wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case, and he must either pay the $400 filing fee or file an in forma pauperis application for non-prisoners in that new case.
Dated: April 14, 2020
/s/_________
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey