Case No. 2:17-cv-01926-JAD-VCF
Order Dismissing Case
Pro se plaintiff and former inmate Mario Valdez, Jr. brings this civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 27, 2018, this court denied Valdez's application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot because he was no longer incarcerated. The Court ordered Valdez to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee of $400 by July 27, 2018. It also ordered him to file an updated address by that deadline. He failed to do any of this or otherwise respond to the court's order.
ECF No. 3 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 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).
I find that the first two factors—the public's interest in expeditiously resolving the litigation and the court's interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissing this case. 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. Valdez was warned that his case would be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to update his address by the court's deadline. So, he had adequate warning that his failure to pay the fee or submit a completed application would result in this case's dismissal.
See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
ECF No. 3 (order). --------
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Valdez's failure to file an updated address in compliance with this Court's June 27, 2018, order;
The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.
Dated: September 10, 2018
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey