Oscar Ivan Velasquez-Quinones v. Becerra et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING Action without Prejudice for Failure to Pay Filing Fee and Failure to Obey Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/1/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 OSCAR IVAN VELASQUEZQUINONES, Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 XAVIER BECERRA, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00794-BAM (PC) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER (ECF No. 3) Defendants. 16 17 18 I. Background 19 Plaintiff Oscar Ivan Velasquez-Quinones (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner 20 proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff initiated this 21 action on June 12, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) However, Plaintiff failed to file an application to proceed 22 in forma pauperis or pay the $400.00 filing fee in full. Therefore, on June 21, 2017, the Court 23 ordered Plaintiff to submit a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the 24 filing fee within thirty (30) days. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the 25 order would result in dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 3.) More than thirty days have passed, 26 and Plaintiff has neither submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis nor paid the filing 27 28 1 Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 4.) 1 1 fee. 2 II. 3 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of Discussion 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. Here, Plaintiff has not filed 23 an application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee. Plaintiff also has not responded 24 to the Court’s order. This action can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and 25 compliance. Moreover, the matter cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, 26 unprosecuted, awaiting Plaintiff’s compliance. As a result, the Court is left with no alternative but 27 to dismiss this action. 28 /// 2 1 III. 2 Based on the foregoing, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, for Conclusion and Order 3 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order of June 21, 2017, (ECF No. 3), and his failure 4 either to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara August 1, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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?