Duncan v. Olivas
3:17-cv-00460
D. Nev.Mar 22, 2021Background
- Case: Carl E. Duncan v. Ramon Olivas, et al., No. 3:17-cv-00460.
- Court ordered Plaintiff to file an updated address by March 12, 2021 (Order dated Feb. 10, 2021) and expressly warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal with prejudice.
- Plaintiff did not file the updated address and did not respond to the Court’s order by the deadline.
- The Court reviewed Ninth Circuit precedent governing dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders.
- Applying the controlling factors (public interest in expeditious resolution, docket management, prejudice to defendants, public policy favoring merits, and availability of less drastic alternatives), the Court concluded dismissal was warranted.
- Order: action dismissed with prejudice; Clerk directed to close the case and enter judgment (Order dated Mar. 22, 2021, Judge Robert C. Jones).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to dismiss the action for failure to comply with a court order / failure to prosecute | Duncan did not respond or present any argument | No argument from defendants is recorded in the order | Court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to file updated address as ordered |
| Whether the Thompson/Henderson factors support dismissal | No factors asserted by Duncan | Not asserted by defendants in the order | Court found factors 1 (public interest) and 2 (docket management) weigh for dismissal; factor 3 (prejudice) also weighs for dismissal; factor 4 (merits) outweighed; factor 5 satisfied by prior warning |
| Whether less drastic alternatives were available or required before dismissal | No alternatives proposed by Duncan | Defendants did not oppose or propose alternatives in the record | Court held prior warning in its Feb. 10 order satisfied consideration of alternatives and dismissal was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (district courts may impose sanctions, including dismissal, to control their dockets)
- Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rules)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal affirmed for failure to comply with court order; prior warning requirement)
- Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to keep court apprised of address)
- Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (sets out factors to consider before dismissing for lack of prosecution)
- Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1976) (presumption of prejudice to defendants arises from unreasonable delay in prosecution)