Amps v. Amps ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TRAVARIS AMPS, Case No. 1:23-cv-01276-BAM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 11 v. JUDGE TO ACTION 12 TRAVARIS AMPS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 13 Defendant. FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER (Doc. 3) 14 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 15 16 Plaintiff Travaris Amps, proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil action August 25, 2023. 17 (Doc. 1.) On August 29, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in 18 forma paupers or pay the $402.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of service of the Court’s order. 19 (Doc. 3.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a 20 recommendation for dismissal of this action. (Id.) More than thirty days have passed since 21 service of the Court’s order and Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma 22 pauperis, paid the filing fee, or otherwise complied with the Court’s order.1 23 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 24 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 25 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 26 27 1 Following the Court’s order, Plaintiff filed various notices with this Court. (Docs. 4, 5, and 6.) The notices are unrelated to the Court’s directive to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in 28 forma pauperis. 1 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 2 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 3 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 4 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 5 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 6 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 7 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) 8 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 9 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1) 10 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 11 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 12 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 13 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); see also In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability 14 Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (standards governing dismissal for failure to 15 comply with court orders). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not 16 conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 17 Products Liability Litigation,460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted). 18 A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the filing fee or an 19 application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. As Plaintiff has failed to pay 20 the filing fee, file the proper application to proceed in forma pauperis, or respond to the Court’s 21 order, the Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss this action. This action can proceed no 22 further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the Court’s order. Moreover, the 23 matter cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted, awaiting Plaintiff’s 24 compliance. 25 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a 26 District Judge to this action. 27 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED, without 28 prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, failure to pay the filing fee or 1 submit the proper application to proceed in forma pauperis, and failure to prosecute this action. 2 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 3 Judge assigned to the case, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after 4 being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiffs may file written objections with 5 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 6 Recommendations.” Plaintiffs are advised that the failure to file objections within the specified 7 time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 8 appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 9 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: October 12, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28