(PC) Bland v. The People of the State of California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSHUA BLAND, No. 1:20-cv-00637-NONE-BAM (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT 12 PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING v. FEE AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT 13 ORDER THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 14 CALIFORNIA, (Doc. No. 10) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Joshua Bland is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On May 8, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 20 recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that he be 21 required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. (Doc. No. 6.) Following 22 the granting of an extension of time to do so, plaintiff filed his objections on June 4, 2020. (Doc. 23 No. 9.) 24 On August 6, 2020, the undersigned issued an order adopting the findings and 25 recommendations in full and ordering plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within twenty- 26 one (21) days to proceed with this action. (Doc. No. 10). Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to 27 pay the required filing fee within the specified time, the action would be dismissed without 28 further notice. (Id. at 2.) 1 On August 26, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to pay the filing fee. 2 | (Doc. No. 13.) That motion was granted. (Doc. No. 14.) On September 21, 2020, plaintiff filed 3 | arequest for judicial notice wherein plaintiff argued that the filing fee has been discharged in full 4 | by way of a promissory note. Plaintiff states that the promissory note is valid legal tender; he 5 || attempts to support this contention with a variety of frivolous arguments which the court declines 6 | to summarize herein. (/d.) 7 The court has determined that plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and that his 8 || allegations do not satisfy the imminent danger exception. Therefore, prepayment of the filing fee 9 | is required in order to proceed with this action. The court accepts credit card payments, and if 10 | credit card payment cannot be made, fees may be paid by check or money order. Local Rule 11 | 135(g)(4). Promissory notes are not an acceptable method of payment for the required filing fees 12 |} in this action. 13 The extended deadline to pay the filing fee has expired, and plaintiff has failed to pay the 14 | filing fee with a valid method of payment or otherwise indicate his willingness to comply with the 15 | court’s order. Based on plaintiff’s filing, it is apparent that he does not intend to pay the filing fee 16 | by valid method of payment. Because plaintiff has failed to obey the court’s order and pay the 17 || appropriate filing fee, this case cannot proceed. Therefore, this matter will be dismissed. See 18 | Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). 19 Accordingly, 20 1. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to comply with the 21 court’s order of August 6, 2020, (Doc. No. 10), and his failure to pay the required filing 22 fee; and 23 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and 24 close this action. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ 26 Li fa £5 Dated: _ October 13, 2020 ee T Soe 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28