Williams v. Ennis-Wright
2:21-cv-00277
D. Nev.Apr 30, 2021Background:
- Pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by prisoner Joseph Michael Williams at High Desert State Prison.
- Court ordered on Feb 22, 2021 that Williams must file a signed amended complaint and a fully complete in forma pauperis (IFP) application (all three documents) or pay the $402 filing fee by Apr 23, 2021.
- Williams did not file the amended complaint, complete the IFP paperwork, pay the fee, or otherwise respond by the deadline.
- The Court considered Ninth Circuit precedent governing dismissal for failure to prosecute or to obey court orders, using the multi-factor test (expedition, docket management, prejudice, merits, alternatives).
- The Court concluded the public interest in expedition, docket management, and prejudice to defendants weighed for dismissal; the prior warning satisfied the alternatives inquiry.
- The action was dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk was ordered to close the case and enter judgment.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal is appropriate for failure to comply with the Court's Feb 22 order | No response in the record; Williams did not meet the deadline | No opposition on record; court must manage docket | Case dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply |
| Whether the Ninth Circuit dismissal factors support dismissal | No showing to counter factors | Court: expedition, docket control, and prejudice favor dismissal | Factors weighed in favor of dismissal |
| Whether less drastic alternatives were considered | No argument presented | Court relied on its prior explicit warning to Williams | Prior warning satisfied alternatives requirement |
| Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice | No argument presented | Court chose dismissal without prejudice to permit refiling later | Dismissal entered without prejudice; case closed |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (district courts’ inherent docket-control power and dismissal sanction)
- 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) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with order to amend complaint)
- 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) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to follow rules)
- Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to keep court apprised of address)
- Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1976) (presumption of prejudice from unreasonable delay)