(PC) Mills v. Jones et al

Filing 84

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION for Failure to Pay the Filing Fee signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/23/2024. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS K. MILLS,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01214 JLT SAB (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE

ZACHERY JONES, et al.
Defendants.

16
17

Thomas Mills was proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, in which he seeks to hold

18

the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights during his incarceration at North Kern State

19

Prison. On October 23, 2024, the Court revoked Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and ordered

20

him to pay the filing fee in full within 21 days. (Doc. 81.) To date, Plaintiff has not paid the

21

filing fee or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

22

To determine whether terminating sanctions are appropriate for Plaintiff’s failure to

23

comply with the Court’s order directing payment of the filing fee, the Court must consider: “(1)

24

the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its

25

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of

26

cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan,

27

779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court may dismiss an action when “at least four factors

28

support dismissal, or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City
1

1
2

of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).
In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the

3

Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal.

4

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

5

litigation always favors dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)

6

(recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being

7

subject to noncompliant litigants). Thus, these factors favor the imposition of terminating

8

sanctions.

9

Next, the Court must determine whether the defendants suffer prejudice by examining

10

“whether the plaintiff’s actions impair the … ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the

11

rightful decision of the case.” Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987)

12

(citation omitted). A presumption of prejudice arises when a plaintiff unreasonably delays the

13

prosecution of an action. See Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 400-401; Clear Channel Ent./Televisa

14

Music Corp. v. Mex. Musical, Inc., 252 Fed. App’x 779, 781 (9th Cir. 2007). Because Plaintiff

15

has delayed this action though his failure to obey the Court’s order to pay the filing fee, this factor

16

also supports dismissal.

17

Further, the Court must consider the imposition of lesser sanctions. Allen v. Bayer Corp.,

18

460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006). A court’s warning to a party that an action—or inaction— could

19

result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. See Malone, 833 F.2d

20

at 133; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “a plaintiff can hardly be

21

surprised” by a sanction of dismissal as the result of a violation of a court order. Malone, 833

22

F.2d at 133. In the order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and ordering Plaintiff to

23

pay the filing fee, the Court warned that “[f]ailure to pay the required filing fee will result in

24

dismissal of the action. (Doc. 81 at 2.) Notably, the Court need only warn a party once that the

25

matter could be dismissed to satisfy the requirements considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik,

26

963 F.2d at 1262. Moreover, no lesser sanction than termination without prejudice is feasible

27

because the action cannot proceed without payment of the Court’s filing fee. See United States v.

28

Jiang, 214 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2000) (identifying dismissal without prejudice as a “lesser
2

1
2

sanction” than dismissal with prejudice).
Finally, the policy favoring disposition of claims on the merits is outweighed by the four

3

factors in favor of dismissal. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 133, n. 2 (explaining that although “the

4

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits … weighs against dismissal, it is not

5

sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”). Thus, the ORDERS:

6

1.

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

7

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 23, 2024

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3