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)

Download PDF
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

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?