(PC) Santiago Pratt v. Clark ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SANTIAGO PRATT, Case No.: 1:21-cv-00180-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING ACTION 14 KEN CLARK, et al., (Doc. 6) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Santiago Pratt, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1) For the following reasons, the undersigned magistrate judge finds that 19 Plaintiff has sufficient funds to pay the filing fee and recommends that the Court dismiss this 20 action for failure to comply with this Court’s Order to Show Cause and because the allegation of 21 poverty is untrue. 22 On March 12, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or apply to proceed in 23 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in 24 forma pauperis in which he indicated that he had no cash, checking or savings accounts, or any 25 other assets. (Doc. 6.) According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 26 certified account statement submitted by Plaintiff, he had $9,849.47 in his inmate trust account as 27 of December 9, 2020. (Doc. 2.) The Court found this sufficient to pay the filing fee in full and ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within twenty-one days, why he is entitled to proceed in forma 1 pauperis or, alternatively, pay the filing fee in full. (Doc. 7.) The Court cautioned: “Failure to 2 respond to this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to 3 obey a court order." Id. 4 Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides: 5 “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the 6 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 7 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, 8 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth., City of Los 9 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 10 failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. 11 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 12 order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–31 (9th Cir. 1987) 13 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 14 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 15 Over twenty-days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the order to show 16 cause. Whether he has done so intentionally or mistakenly is inconsequential. Plaintiff bears the 17 responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders. The failure to do so prevents his case from 18 advancing on the merits. Additionally, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 19 determines that . . . the [plaintiff’s] allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). 20 Upon review of Plaintiff’s trust account statement, the Court finds that his allegation of poverty is 21 untrue. Therefore, the Court is statutorily required by to dismiss this case. Based on the 22 foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2), be DENIED; and, 24 2. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling upon prepayment of the 25 filing fee. 26 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a United States District Judge. 27 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 1 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 2 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 3 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time 4 may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 5 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: May 3, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27