Langston v. Avila

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/27/17. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WALTER SHANE LANGSTON,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:16-cv-01445-JLT (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
(Docs. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

14
15

AVILA,
Defendant.

16
17

On November 29, 2016, the Court granted the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

18

pauperis. Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion to “supplement” his in forma pauperis status, which

19

when reviewed in light of the Complaint, revealed that Plaintiff was less than truthful as to prior

20

lawsuits filed while a prisoner and that his in forma pauperis status should be revoked. Thus, on

21

December 16, 2016, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause within 30 days why his in forma

22

pauperis status should not be revoked. (Doc. 11, OSC.) More than the allowed time lapsed

23

without any response from Plaintiff to the OSC. Thus, on January 31, 2017, an order issued

24

revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and requiring Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee

25

in full within thirty days. (Doc. 12, O revoke IFP.) More than thirty days from the date that order

26

issued have lapsed and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee.

27
28

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel, or
of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the
1

1

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.

2

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a

3

court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of

4

Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, based on a

5

party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with

6

local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for

7

failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal

8

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order);

9

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and

10

to comply with local rules).

11

A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the filing fee or a

12

completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Plaintiff is not

13

eligible for the latter and was ordered to pay the filing fee. Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply

14

with the Court’s order to pay the filing fee, dismissal of this action is appropriate. In re

15

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006);

16

Local Rule 110.

17
18

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice
because of Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s January 31, 2017 order and to pay the filing fee.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 27, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2