Humes v. Eliston et al
Filing
7
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 05/10/18 DENYING 4 , 5 motions requesting financial assistance in the pursuit of this action. The clerk of the court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to abide by an order of this court. Assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JON HUMES,
12
No. 2:17-cv-2650 AC P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ELISTON, et al.,
15
ORDER and
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a Sacramento County Jail inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights
18
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is referred to the undersigned United
19
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). By order
20
filed December 28, 2017, plaintiff was directed to submit, within thirty days, an application to
21
proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the full filing fee. See ECF No. 3. The court informed
22
plaintiff that “failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be
23
dismissed.” Id. at 2.
24
Three months later, on March 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Dismiss Filing Fees,”
25
to enable plaintiff to use his “pro se funds . . . for discovery, to hopefully build a worthy case to
26
present to The Awesome District Court.” ECF No. 4. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a
27
“motion” requesting “$500.00 per month in pro se money to facilitate discovery and other
28
advances” in this case. ECF No. 5. Both requests will be denied. Prisoners are required to pay
1
1
the full filing fee to commence a civil action, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), and the court has no
2
authority to provide funds to pro se litigants for discovery or other litigation expenses.
3
More importantly, plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s December 28, 2017
4
order. Under some circumstances, a pro se litigant’s failure to respond to an order of the court
5
may warrant a reminder or order to show cause. Not in this case. Plaintiff has filed more than
6
forty pro se cases in this court in less than a year, significantly contributing to the workload of the
7
court. This context requires that plaintiff be held accountable for his responses – or failure to
8
respond – to the court’s orders.
9
Plaintiff’s failure to abide by an order of this court authorizes the dismissal of this action
10
under both the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Local Rule 110 provides that
11
failure to comply with court orders or rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all
12
sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Similarly, the
13
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or to
14
comply with the rules or orders of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
15
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
16
1. Plaintiff’s motions requesting financial assistance in the pursuit of this action, ECF
17
Nos. 4 & 5, are denied.
18
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this action.
19
Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without
20
prejudice for failure to abide by an order of this court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
21
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
22
assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)
23
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written
24
objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
25
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time
26
////
27
////
28
////
2
1
may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th
2
Cir. 1991).
3
SO ORDERED.
4
DATED: May 10, 2018
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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?