(PC) Graham v. State of California ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CRYSTAL GRAHAM, Case No. 1:23-cv-01323-JLT-BAM 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 11 v. FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER (Doc. 4) 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Crystal Graham is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel in this civil rights 16 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a complaint commencing this action on 17 September 6, 2023, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 3.) The 18 application included a case caption for a different action and a CM/ECF header for Case No. 19 1:23-cv-00973-EPG. 20 On September 7, 2023, to ensure that the application was filed with the applicable case 21 caption and in the appropriate case, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a corrected application to 22 proceed in forma paupers or pay the $402.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of service of the 23 Court’s order. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order would 24 result in dismissal of this action. (Id.) More than thirty days have passed since service of the 25 Court’s order and Plaintiff has not filed a corrected application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid 26 the filing fee, or otherwise complied with the Court’s order. 27 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 28 1 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 2 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 3 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 4 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 5 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a 6 court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 7 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 8 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 9 complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for 10 failure to comply with court order). 11 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1) 12 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 13 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 14 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 15 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); see also In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability 16 Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (standards governing dismissal for failure to 17 comply with court orders). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not 18 conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 19 Products Liability Litigation,460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted). 20 A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the filing fee or an 21 appropriate application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. As Plaintiff has 22 failed to pay the filing fee, file a corrected application to proceed in forma pauperis, or respond to 23 the Court’s order, the Court is left with no alternative but to recommend dismissal of this action. 24 At this early stage of the proceedings, and given that Plaintiff is a prisoner who has not resolved 25 payment of the filing fee, the Court finds monetary or evidentiary sanctions of little use. This 26 action can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the Court’s 27 order. Moreover, the matter cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted, 28 awaiting Plaintiff’s compliance. 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED, without 2 prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and Plaintiff’s failure to 3 pay the filing fee or submit an appropriate application to proceed in forma pauperis. 4 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 5 Judge assigned to the case, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after 6 being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiffs may file written objections with 7 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 8 Recommendations.” Plaintiffs are advised that the failure to file objections within the specified 9 time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 10 appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 11 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: October 18, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28