Bradford v. Portillo, et al.
Filing
7
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to Pay Filing Fee, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/17/13. Referred to Judge Ishii. Thirty-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
Case No. 1:13-cv-01529 AWI DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE
M. PORTILLO, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro
se in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on September 24, 2013.
On October 17, 2013, Plaintiff submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On
20
November 19, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application under the three-strikes provision of 28
21
U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff was ordered to pay the $400.00 filing fee within fourteen days of the
22
date of service of the order.
23
24
25
26
Over fourteen days have passed and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or otherwise
contacted the Court.
DISCUSSION
Local Rule 11-110 provides that Afailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local
27
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all
28
sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.@ District courts have the inherent power to
1
1
control their dockets and Ain the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where
2
appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.@ Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
3
1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party=s failure to prosecute an
4
action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v.
5
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.
6
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order
7
requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)
8
(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of
9
address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to
10
comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for
11
failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
12
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court
13
order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: (1) the public=s
14
interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court=s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk
15
of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and
16
(5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at
17
1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
18
In the instant case, the Court finds that the public=s interest in expeditiously resolving this
19
litigation and the Court=s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third
20
factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of
21
injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air
22
West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of
23
cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein.
24
Finally, a Court=s warning to a party that his failure to obey the Court=s order will result in
25
dismissal satisfies the Aconsideration of alternatives@ requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at
26
1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court=s order requiring Plaintiff to
27
pay the filing fee in full within fourteen days expressly stated: “If Plaintiff fails to pay the $400.00
28
filing fee in full within fourteen days, this action shall be dismissed without prejudice.” Thus,
2
1
plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court=s
2
order.
3
Moreover, a civil action may not proceed absent payment of the filing fee or a completed
4
application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915; Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, 11(a). Based
5
on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and pay the filing fee, the Court recommends
6
that this action be dismissed. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460
7
F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006); Local Rule 110.
8
9
10
11
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
12
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)
13
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
14
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
15
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
16
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
17
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
18
19
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
December 17, 2013
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
3b142a
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?