Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
5
ORDER Directing the Clerk of the Court to Assign a United States District Judge to the Action; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing the Action for Failure to Pay the Filing Fee Pursuant to 28 USC 1914(a) and Failure to Obey the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/22/15. Fourteen-Day Objection Deadline. This case is assigned to District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston The New Case Number is: 1:15-cv-00187-LJO-JLT. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
VINCENT YSARRARAS RAMIREZ, SR.,
18
Case No.: 1:15-cv-01187 - JLT
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO
ASSIGN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
TO THE ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
PAY THE FILING FEE PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND FAILURE TO OBEY
THE COURT’S ORDER
On July 30, 2015, Plaintiff Vincent Ysarrars Ramirez, Sr., initiated an action against the
19
Commissioner of Social Security, asserting he should be awarded Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1).
20
For the following reasons, it is hereby recommended that the action be DISMISSED.
21
I.
22
Procedural History
When Plaintiff initiated the action on July 30, 2015, he failed to pay the filing fee. Therefore,
23
on August 4, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma
24
pauperis (“IFP”) for the action to proceed. (Doc. 2 at 1) (citing Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176,
25
1177 (9th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s order, in which he reported he “received
26
a denial of informa pauperis [but] the document was stolen…” (Doc. 3 at 1)
27
28
On August 20, 2015, the Court issued a second order, explaining to Plaintiff that it had “has not
received a request from Plaintiff to proceed IFP in this action, and as such, the Court has not
1
1
determined whether Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1951(a)(1).” (Doc. 4 at 2)
2
Therefore, the Court ordered Plaintiff “to either pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed IFP in this
3
matter. . . within 21 days of service of th[e] order.” (Id. at 2) Further, the Court cautioned Plaintiff that
4
failure to comply would “result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.” (Id., emphasis
5
omitted) To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s order.
6
II.
Failure to Pay the Filing Fee
As a general rule, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United States
7
8
District Court must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s
9
failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C §
10
1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 492 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1177.
11
As noted above, Plaintiff did not prepay the filing fee, and the action may not proceed.
12
III.
13
Failure to obey the Court’s Order
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a
14
party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any
15
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent
16
power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including
17
dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
18
1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action
19
or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
20
F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment
21
of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to
22
comply with a court order).
23
In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court
24
order, or failure to comply with the Local Rules, the court must consider several factors, including: “(1)
25
the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3)
26
the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
27
merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424
28
(9th Cir. 1986); see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.
2
Here, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in
1
2
managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990
3
(9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal”);
4
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in managing their
5
dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). The risk of prejudice also weighs in favor of
6
dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in
7
prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
Finally, the Court warned Plaintiff the action could not proceed without payment of fees.
8
9
(Doc. 2 at 1; Doc. 4 at 1-2) In addition, Plaintiff was informed: “Failure to comply with this order
10
will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.” (Doc.
11
4 at 2, emphasis in original) These warnings satisfy the requirement that the Court consider less
12
drastic measures. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Consequently, the
13
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal.
14
IV.
Order
Good cause appearing therefor, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States
15
16
District Judge to the action.
17
V.
18
Findings and Recommendations
Plaintiff has failed to file the requisite filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and as a
19
result, the matter cannot proceed before the Court at this time. Further, Plaintiff failed to obey the
20
Court’s Orders dated August 4, 2015 (Doc. 2) and August 20, 2015 (Doc. 4).
21
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:
22
1.
the filing fee and obey the Court’s order; and
23
24
25
This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to pay
2.
The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close this action, because this order terminates
the action in its entirety.
26
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
27
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
28
Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen
3
1
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
2
objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
3
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
4
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
5
1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014).
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 22, 2015
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?