Order Dismissing Action and Closing Case

JENNIFER DORSEY, District Judge.

This is a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a former state prisoner. On April 17, 2019, this Court issued an order denying the application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners as moot because plaintiff is no longer incarcerated.1 The Court ordered him to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee of $400 by May 17, 2019.2 That deadline expired without plaintiff filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners, paying the full filing fee, or otherwise responding to the order.

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and "[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal" of a case.3 A court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.4 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.5

I find that the first two factors—the public's interest in expeditiously resolving the litigation and the court's interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissing this case. The risk-of-prejudice factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.6 The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal, and a court's warning to a party that his failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement.7 The Court's order requiring plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee by May 17, 2019, expressly stated: "It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to timely file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee of $400, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice."8 Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that his failure to timely pay the fee or submit a completed application would result in this case's dismissal.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on plaintiff's failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court's order.

The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.