Driver v. U.S. Special Master et al
Filing
10
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED, Without Prejudice, for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Order of May 2, 2017, and Failure to Pay the Filing Fee re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/30/2017. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BILLY DRIVER,
12
13
14
15
16
Case No. 1:17-cv-00202-DAD-BAM (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. SPECIAL MASTER, et al.,
Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO
PAY FILING FEE AND FAILURE TO OBEY
COURT ORDER
(ECF No. 9)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
17
18
Plaintiff Billy Driver (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
19
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on February 13, 2017. (ECF
20
No. 1.) On the same day, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28
21
U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.) On February 22, 2017, the Court issued findings and
22
recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be
23
denied and that he be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action.
24
(ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on March 9, 2017. (ECF No. 8.)
25
On May 2, 2017, the assigned District Judge issued an order adopting the findings and
26
recommendations over Plaintiff’s objections, and ordering Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee
27
in full within forty-five (45) days. (ECF No. 9). In that order, Plaintiff was warned that if he
28
failed to pay the filing fee within the specified time, the action would be dismissed. (Id.) The
1
1
relevant time period for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s order has expired, and Plaintiff has not
2
yet paid the filing fee.
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of
3
4
that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v.
5
Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with
6
prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure
7
to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995)
8
(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th
9
Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);
10
Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to
11
comply with court order).
12
In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors:
13
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its
14
docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of
15
cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779
16
F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988); see also In
17
re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006)
18
(standards governing dismissal for failure to comply with court orders). These factors guide a
19
court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take
20
action. Id. (citation omitted).
21
A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the filing fee or an
22
application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. As Plaintiff’s application to
23
proceed in forma pauperis has been denied, he has failed to pay the filing fee, and has not
24
otherwise responded to the Court’s order, the Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss this
25
action. This action has been pending since February 2017, and can proceed no further without
26
Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the Court’s order. Moreover, the matter cannot
27
simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted, awaiting Plaintiff’s compliance.
28
///
2
1
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED,
2
without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order of May 2, 2017, (ECF
3
No. 9), and failure to pay the filing fee.
4
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
5
Judge assigned to the case, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after
6
being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with
7
the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
8
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file objections within the specified
9
time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on
10
appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
11
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
June 30, 2017
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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?