Soriano et al v. Fresno Unified School District et al

Filing 7

Findings and recommendations recommending dismissing this 1 action for failure to pay filing fee, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/30/2015. Matter is referred to Judge Mueller. Objections to F&R due by 2/18/2015. (Figueroa, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD P. SORIANO, et al., Plaintiffs, 12 13 14 Case No. 1:14-cv-02023-KJM-SAB FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING THIS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE v. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 On December 19, 2014, Plaintiffs Richard P. Soriano and Frank R. Ortiz (“Plaintiffs”) filed the complaint in this action and each plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1. 2, 3.) On December 24, 2014, the plaintiffs were found to be ineligible to proceed in this action without prepayment of fees; and Plaintiffs were ordered to pay the filing fee within thirty days. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiffs were advised in the order that the failure to pay the filing fee would result in this action being dismissed. More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiffs have not paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 28 1 1 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2 2000). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 3 4 prejudice for Plaintiffs’ failure to pay the filing fee in compliance with the December 24, 2014 5 order of the Court. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 6 7 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 8 (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 9 findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 10 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 11 district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 12 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 13 time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 14 Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: January 30, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?