Hardin v. Wilson et al

Filing 6

ORDER to PLAINTIFF to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for His Failure to Prosecute the Action and Pay the Filing Fee, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/8/2018. Show Cause Response due by 1/25/2018. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JEFFREY T. HARDIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID WILSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01232 - LJO - JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR HIS FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THE
ACTION AND PAY THE FILING FEE

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on September 14, 2017. (Doc. 1) However,

17

he did not pay the filing fee. Although the Court granted Plaintiff the opportunity to file an

18

application to proceed in forma pauperis no later than December 29, 2017—and provided the form on

19

two occasions—Plaintiff failed to file an application.

20

As the Court informed Plaintiff previously, as a general rule, all parties instituting any civil

21

action, suit or proceeding in a United States District Court must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

22

The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without the filing fee “by a person who

23

submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is

24

unable to pay such fees or give security therefore.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Therefore, an action may

25

proceed despite a failure to prepay the filing fee only if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted

26

by the Court. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Despite receiving this

27

information from the Court, Plaintiff failed to take any action to prosecute this action through paying

28

the filing fee, or filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
1

1

In addition, the Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of

2

counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for

10

failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

11

(dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

12

Because the action is unable to proceed at this time, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in

13

writing no later than January 25, 2018, why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to

14

prosecute this action and failure to pay the filing fee.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2