Background

• Joseph Price, while incarcerated, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Nevada Department of Corrections alleging constitutional violations.
• The Court ordered Price to file an amended complaint by June 11, 2025, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.
• Price did not file the required amended complaint or request an extension by the given deadline.
• The Court evaluated whether to dismiss the case for failure to comply with its order, considering five standard factors for dismissal for lack of prosecution or failure to comply with orders.
• Based on these factors—especially repeated inaction and no indication Price needed more time—the Court found dismissal appropriate.
• The case was dismissed without prejudice; Price’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied as moot, and any future litigation must be brought as a new case.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may dismiss case as sanction for failure to comply with orders)
• Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirmed dismissal for failure to comply with procedural rules requiring ongoing communication by pro se plaintiffs)
• Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order)
• Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1976) (prejudice presumed from unreasonable delay in prosecution)
• Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (courts must explore but need not exhaust all less drastic alternatives before dismissal)
• Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1999) (must consider less drastic alternatives after party disobeys court order)