(SS) Chaney v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KARINTHA LEE TYIESHA CHANEY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01221-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT 13 v. JUDGE 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR 15 Defendant. FAILURE TO SUBMIT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR PAY 16 THE FILING FEE 17 (ECF Nos. 2, 3) 18 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 19 20 I. 21 INTRODUCTION 22 Plaintiff Karintha Lee Tyiesha Chaney (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on September 23, 23 2022, challenging a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application 24 for disability benefits. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in this action and instead 25 filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF 26 No. 2.) On September 28, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application and ordered Plaintiff to 27 either file a long form application to proceed IFP or pay the filing fee by October 18, 2022. (ECF 28 No. 3.) In its order, the Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with its order would result 1 in dismissal of this action. (Id. at 2.) The deadline to file an application to proceed IFP or pay the 2 filing fee has expired and Plaintiff has not submitted an IFP application, paid the filing fee, 3 requested an extension to do so, or submitted any other filings. 4 II. 5 LEGAL STANDARD 6 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 7 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 8 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 9 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 10 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 11 A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 12 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. 13 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. 14 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 15 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 16 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 17 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1) 18 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 19 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 20 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 21 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 22 III. 23 DISCUSSION 24 Here, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is overdue, she has not paid the 25 filing fee for this action, and she has failed to comply with the Court’s order. The Court cannot 26 effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating her case. Thus, the Court finds that 27 both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 28 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 1 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 2 Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against 3 dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 4 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose 5 responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 6 progress in that direction,” as here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 7 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 8 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the Court’s order will result in 9 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 10 Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s September 28, 2022 order 11 expressly warned Plaintiff that her failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a 12 dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 3.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could 13 result from her noncompliance. 14 Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that 15 would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 16 unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, and will 17 likely attempt to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, apparently making monetary sanctions 18 of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that 19 Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case. 20 IV. 21 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to 23 randomly assign this matter to a District Judge. 24 Further, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY 25 RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a Court 26 order, failure to pay the filing fee, and for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 28 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 1 | (14) days of issuance of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to the findings 2 | and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 3 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Alternatively, Plaintiff may elect to pay the 4 | required filing fee. 5 The district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 6 | pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 7 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 8 | 839 (Oth Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 11 | Dated: _ October 26, 2022 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28