Petillo v. Galliger et al
Filing
45
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that that this action be dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court's order issued on March 29, 2021 requiring him to pay the filing fee ;referred to Judge Unassigned DJ,signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 05/14/2021. (Objections to F&R due within 14-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ISAIAH J. PETILLO,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
vs.
GALLIGER, et al.,
Defendants.
1:18-cv-00217-NONE-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE COURT’S ORDER REQUIRING HIM TO
PAY THE FILING FEE
(ECF No. 44.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS
17
18
Isaiah J. Petillo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
19
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed
20
the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.)
21
On March 29, 2021, the court issued an order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status
22
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and requiring Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action in
23
full within thirty days. (ECF No. 44.) The thirty-day time period has now expired and Plaintiff
24
has not paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to the court’s order.
25
In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply
26
with the directives set forth in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the
27
public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;
28
(3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives;
1
1
and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza,
2
291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.
3
1992) (failure to comply with court orders). see also In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir.
4
1994) (failure to prosecute).
5
“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’”
6
id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the
7
action has been pending since February 12, 2018. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court’s
8
order may reflect Plaintiff’s disinterest in prosecuting this case or his inability to pay the filing
9
fee. In such an instance, the court cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a
10
litigant who will not or cannot resolve payment of the filing fee for his lawsuit. Thus, both the
11
first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
12
Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in
13
and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently
14
increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and it
15
is Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee for this action that is causing delay. Therefore, the third
16
factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
17
As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little
18
available to the court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the
19
court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Monetary sanctions in this
20
circumstance are of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of
21
evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in
22
this case is without prejudice, the court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction
23
of dismissal with prejudice.
24
25
Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always
weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.
26
Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed without
27
prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order issued on March 29, 2021 requiring
28
him to pay the filing fee.
2
1
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
2
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
3
(14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file
4
written objections with the court.
5
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served
6
and filed within ten (10) days after the objections are filed. Plaintiff is advised that failure to
7
file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson
8
v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394
9
(9th Cir. 1991)).
Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 14, 2021
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?