In re Paxton P. Shanklin

Shanklin · United States District Court for the District of Nevada · November 21, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-01400-CDS-DJA

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed Paxton P. Shanklin’s action without prejudice after he failed to file a complaint and either pay the filing fee or submit a complete in forma pauperis application by the court-ordered deadline. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s factors for dismissal based on failure to obey a court order, the court concluded that dismissal was warranted. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.

Holdings

  1. A district court may dismiss an action when a party fails to obey a court order, and dismissal was warranted here because Shanklin failed to file a complaint and address the filing fee despite the court's order.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to comply with the court's order to file a complaint and address the filing fee.
  2. Whether meaningful alternatives to dismissal were available under the applicable five-factor dismissal analysis.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (8)

  • Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
  • Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
  • Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976)(followed)
  • Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • Pagtalunan v. Galaga, F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…