Orozco v. Wilson, et al.

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Plaintiff's failure to comply with court order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/2/2017. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL OROZCO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01731-EPG-PC
ORDER TO DISMISS CASE FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH COURT ORDER

W. WILSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Daniel Orozco, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on November 17, 2016,
17
18
19
20

alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants W. Wilson, D. Meyer, J. Marshall,
and R. Prioleau. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file an application to
proceed in forma pauperis.1
On November 18, 2016, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to submit an

21
22

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action within

23

forty-five days. (ECF No. 3.) In response to the order, Plaintiff filed a one page certificate of

24

funds in his prison account, but did not return the application to proceed in forma pauperis that

25

he had been instructed to return. (ECF No. 5.) On January 9, 2017, the Court again sent

26
27
28

1

On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c) and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 4.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of
the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the
case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

1

1

Plaintiff a blank application to proceed in forma pauperis, informed him that his previous filing

2

was insufficient, and provided him with another thirty days to submit the requested application.

3

(ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was also informed that a failure to comply with the order would lead to

4

dismissal of his action. The deadline to respond to the January 9, 2017 order has now expired

5
6
7
8
9

and Plaintiff has not filed any further documents with the Court or paid the required filing fee.
A plaintiff must pay the required filing fee or receive permission to proceed in forma
pauperis before beginning a civil action in federal court. Pate v. Guiltie, 2009 WL 3710714, at
*1, Case No. CIV S-08-1802-JAM-DAD-PS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2009), citing 28 U.S.C. §
1914(a). Local Rule 110 also provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with

10
11
12
13
14

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
including, where appropriate, dismissal of a case.” Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d

15

837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor complied with the Court’s

16

orders to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

17

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on

18

Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s orders of November 18, 2016 and January 9, 2017. The

19

Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 2, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2