Gonzales v. City of Clovis, et al.
Filing
6
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Action be DISMISSED, Without Prejudice, for Failure to File an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis or Pay the Applicable Filing Fee, Failure to Obey a Court Order, and Failure to Prosecute re 1 Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/10/2017. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
CAIN A. GONZALES,
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CLOVIS, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00282-LJO-MJS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO FILE
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS OR PAY FILING FEE,
FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER,
AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF NOS. 3, 4, 5)
18
19
20
21
This action was initiated on February 27, 2017 with the filing of what appears to
22
be a civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) That same
23
date, an application to proceed in forma pauperis was filed. (ECF No. 2.) On March 9,
24
2017, the application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied without prejudice on the
25
ground it was completed and signed by a non-party and did not contain information
26
regarding Plaintiff’s financial resources. (ECF No. 3.) Also on March 9, 2017, Plaintiff’s
27
28
1
complaint was stricken because it was not signed. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff was ordered to
2
pay the filing fee for this action or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis
3
within thirty days. He also was ordered to file a signed complaint within thirty days. He
4
failed to do either.
5
On April 18, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should
6
not be dismissed for failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, failure to
7
obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff did not respond and
8
the time for doing so has passed.
9
A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the filing fee or a
10
completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Based on
11
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 3), dismissal of this action is
12
appropriate. See In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d
13
1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006); Local Rule 110.
14
Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court order requiring him to file a
15
signed complaint. Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply
16
with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the
17
Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts
18
have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they
19
may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v.
20
Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with
21
prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure
22
to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)
23
(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-
24
61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a
25
complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure
26
to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);
27
28
2
1
Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to
2
comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)
3
(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
4
In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation
5
and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third
6
factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a
7
presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting
8
this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor –
9
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the
10
factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein, particularly where it is unclear whether the
11
named Plaintiff is aware of this action or has brought it on his own behalf. Finally, as for
12
the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available
13
which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court
14
resources. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee in this action, making monetary sanctions of
15
little use.
16
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT the action be
17
dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to file an application to proceed in forma
18
pauperis or pay the applicable filing fee, failure to obey a court order, and failure to
19
prosecute.
20
The findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District
21
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
22
fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, any party
23
may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a
24
document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
25
Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen
26
(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
27
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.
28
3
1
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
2
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 10, 2017
/s/
6
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
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?