Hunt v. Anabi Oil Corporation

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 PHILLIP GERALD HUNT, JR., Case No. 2:25-cv-01848-MMD-NJK 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ANABI OIL CORPORATION, 9 Defendant. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Plaintiff Phillip Gerald Hunt, Jr., brings this action against Defendant Anabi Oil 13 Corporation. (ECF No. 1-1 (“Complaint”).) The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint, found 14 that Plaintiff failed to state a federal claim, and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without 15 prejudice with leave to file an amended complaint by February 9, 2026. (ECF No. 7.) 16 Plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint. Accordingly, United States Magistrate 17 Judge Nancy J. Koppe issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal 18 of this case without prejudice. (ECF No. 10 (“R&R”).) Plaintiff untimely filed an Objection 19 to the R&R (ECF No. 11), which the Court construed as a request for an extension of time 20 to file an amended complaint and granted, giving Plaintiff up to and including April 23, 21 2026 to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 12 (“Order”)). That deadline expired and 22 Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 23 II. DISCUSSION 24 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 25 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 26 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 27 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 28 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 2 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 3 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 4 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 5 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 6 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 7 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 8 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 9 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 10 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 11 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s 12 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 13 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 14 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 15 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 16 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 17 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 18 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 19 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 20 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 21 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 22 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 23 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 24 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 25 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 26 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 27 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 28 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 1 unless Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order 2 || setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often only 3 || delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances here 4 || do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is no hint that Plaintiff needs 5 || additional time or evidence that he did not receive the Court’s Order. Setting another 6 || deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor 7 || favors dismissal. 8 Having thoroughly considered the dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh 9 || in favor of dismissal. 10 || Ill. CONCLUSION 11 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 12 || Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court's March 26, 13 || 2026 order (ECF No. 12). 14 The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this 15 || case. 16 DATED THIS 22" Day of May 2026. 17 19 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28