dismissal for failure to comply with court order
How later courts described this case
- dismissal for failure to comply with court order
- affirming dismissal for failure to comply 26 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 JORGE LATORRE, Case No. 2:23-cv-01589-GMN-BNW
6 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING
v. CASE
7
BROWN,
8
Defendant.
9
10
11 Plaintiff Jorge Latorre appears to have brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C.
12 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he suffered while incarcerated in the custody of the
13 Nevada Department of Corrections. (See ECF No.1-1). But Latorre did not file a complaint and
14 either pay the full $402 filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status. So, this Court ordered
15 Latorre to correct both deficiencies by November 4, 2023. (ECF No. 3). The Court warned Latorre
16 that this action could be dismissed if he failed to file a complaint and either pay the filing fee or
17 apply for pauper status by that deadline. (Id.) That deadline expired and Latorre did not file a
18 complaint and either pay the filing fee or apply for pauper status, move for an extension, or
19 otherwise respond.
20 I. DISCUSSION
21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of
22 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.
23 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may
24 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See
25 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply
26 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal
27 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In
28 determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the
2 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on
3 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine
4 Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130).
5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the
6 Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissing Latorre’s claims. The third
7 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of
8 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court
9 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth
10 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by
11 the factors favoring dismissal.
12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used
13 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish
14 v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic
15 alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord
16 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every
17 sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and
18 meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Generally,
19 litigation cannot progress without the plaintiff’s compliance with the court’s orders. Because this
20 action cannot proceed until Latorre files a complaint and either pays the filing fee or applies for
21 pauper status, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting another deadline. But the
22 reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the
23 Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception
24 because Latorre ignored the first order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative
25 given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal.
26 II. CONCLUSION
27 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in
28 favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on
2 application to proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with this Court’s October 5, 2023, order.
3 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other
4 documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Jorge Latorre wishes to pursue his claims, he
5 must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the required filing fee or file an application to
6 proceed in forma pauperis.
7
8
9 DATED: December 7, 2023
10 ________________________________
GLORIA M. NAVARRO
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28