Scoggin v. Turning Point Central California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANELLE RENEE SCOGGIN, Case No. 1:20-cv-00140-DAD-SAB 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 14 TURNING POINT CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, (ECF No. 4) 15 Defendant. THIRTY DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 Plaintiff Danelle Scoggin (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se in this action, filed the complaint 19 in this action on January 28, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in this action 20 and instead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 21 However, Plaintiff’s application was not adequately completed. In response to question three, 22 Plaintiff indicates she receives disability and child support payments but does not describe the 23 amounts received and what she expects to continue to receive. (ECF No. 2 at 1.) On January 31, 24 2020, an order issued requiring Plaintiff to file a long form application to proceed in forma 25 pauperis or pay the filing fee within twenty days. (ECF No. 4.) More than twenty days have 26 passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the January 31, 2020 order. 27 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 1 | sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 2 | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 3 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 4 | 2000). 5 Here, Plaintiff was ordered to either pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in 6 | forma pauperis within twenty days of January 31, 2020. More than twenty days have passed and 7 | Plaintiff did not comply with or otherwise respond to the January 31, 2020 order. The January 8 | 31, 2020 order informed plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal 9 | of this action. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for 11 | Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis in 12 | compliance with the January 31, 2019 order. 13 This findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this 14 | action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30) 15 | days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to this findings and 16 | recommendations with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 17 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the 18 | magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 19 | Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 20 | waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 21 | Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 24 | Dated: _ February 28, 2020 _ Of UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28