(PC) Stone v. Horn

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING the Action Without Prejudice for Failure to Pay the Filing Fee, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/8/2025. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk CRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ADAM JAY STONE,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

HORN,

Case No. 1:24-cv-01249 JLT EPG (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE
TO PAY THE FILING FEE

Defendant.
15
16
17

On October 17, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or submit an

18

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) Despite the Court’s warning that failure to

19

comply with the order would result in dismissal (id. at 1), Plaintiff failed to submit the IFP

20

application or pay the required fee. Without such payment, the action cannot proceed before the

21

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. Amplifier,

1

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

2

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

3

have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants).

4

Because Plaintiff delayed the action though his failure to obey the Court’s order denying his

5

application to proceed in forma pauperis, the third factor also supports dismissal. Further, the

6

Court warned that “[f]ailure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action” (Doc.

7

3 at 1, emphasis omitted), and the Court need only warn a party once that the matter could be

8

dismissed to satisfy the requirement of considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262.

9

Thus, the Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee

10

as ordered. Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that

11

although “the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits . . . weighs against

12

dismissal, it is not sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”).

13

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

14

1.

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

15

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2025

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2