(PC) Sanchez v. Wollet et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING the Action Without Prejudice for Failure to Pay the Filing Fee, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/7/2025. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk OFR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MATTHEW J. SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.

Case No. 1:24-cv-0649 JLT EPG (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE
TO PAY THE FILING FEE

MARY ANN WOLLET, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On October 28, 2024, the Court found Plaintiff was not entitled to proceed in forma

18

pauperis in this action and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full to proceed with this action.

19

(Doc. 10.) Despite the Court’s warning that failure to pay the filing fee would result in dismissal

20

(id. at 2), Plaintiff failed to pay the required fee. Without such payment, the action cannot

21

proceed before the Court. See Saddozai v. Davis, 35 F.4th 705, 709 (9th Cir. 2022).

22

In finding dismissal is appropriate for the failure to pay the filing fee, the Court also

23

considered the factors outlined by the Ninth Circuit for terminating sanctions, including: “(1) the

24

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

25

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

26

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d

27

1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

(district courts have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject to

4

noncompliant litigants). Because Plaintiff delayed the action though his failure to obey the

5

Court’s order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis, the third factor also supports

6

dismissal. Further, the Court warned that “[f]ailure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will

7

result in dismissal of the action without prejudice” (Doc. 10 at 2, emphasis omitted), and the

8

Court need only warn a party once that the matter could be dismissed to satisfy the requirement of

9

considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Thus, the Henderson factors weigh

10

in favor of dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee as ordered. Malone v. U.S. Postal

11

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that although “the public policy

12

favoring disposition of cases on their merits … weighs against dismissal, it is not sufficient to

13

outweigh the other four factors”).

14

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

15

1.

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

16

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 7, 2025

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2