U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey
Order Dismissing Case
[ECF No. 1]
Pro se petitioner Kevin Fullre filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, but he failed to file an accompanying complaint. Magistrate Judge Koppe ordered Mr. Fullre to file a complaint by December 21, 2017, and warned him that failure to do so may result in his case getting dismissed. That deadline has passed and Fullre has still not filed a complaint.
See generally docket report case no. 2:17-cv-02889-JAD-NJK.
ECF No. 3.
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 for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several facts: (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. 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. A court's warning to a party that failing to obey the court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement, and Fullre was expressly warned that dismissal could result if he failed to file a complaint by December 21, 2017. Although the fourth factor weighs against dismissal, it is greatly outweighed by those favoring dismissal.
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. --------
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Fullre's ability to file a complaint in a new, separate case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Fullre's application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as moot.
DATED: January 2, 2018.
/s/_________
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey