(PC) Stevens v. Clark ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS, No. 1:22-cv-01005-ADA-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT 14 DOLORES A CLARK, ORDER 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 12) 16 17 Plaintiff Lyralisa Lavena Stevens is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On August 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 4.) On August 19, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and 21 recommendations, finding that Plaintiff had accrued three strikes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 22 1915(g) and recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion and order Plaintiff to pay the 23 $402.00 filing fee in order to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 6.) The Court adopted those 24 findings and recommendations in full on September 3, 2022. (ECF No. 11.) In its order, the 25 Court required Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full within twenty-one days. (Id. at 5.) The order 26 warned Plaintiff that failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time would result in 27 dismissal of this action. (Id.) 28 /// 1 On October 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to the Court’s order directing her to pay the 2 | filing fee. (ECF No. 12.) In her objections, Plaintiff reiterates the arguments she previously 3 | raised in objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. Specifically, she 4 | claims that the Court erroneously considered certain of her previously dismissed actions as strikes 5 | within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Ud.) 6 Plaintiffs objections are overruled. As the Court discussed extensively in its September 7 | 23, 2022 order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, these actions have 8 || been correctly considered as strikes. (ECF No. 11 at 1-2.) Plaintiff has raised no new arguments 9 | that would warrant reconsideration of these conclusions. 10 Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, and the deadline to do so has passed. Plaintiff's 11 | objections also indicate that she has no intention of paying the filing fee in this action. Because 12 | Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s order and to pay the appropriate filing fee, this case cannot 13 | proceed, and the matter will be dismissed. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th 14 } Cir. 1992). 15 Accordingly, 16 1. Plaintiff's October 5, 2022 objections, (ECF No. 12), are overruled; 17 2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to Plaintiffs failure to comply 18 with the Court’s September 23, 2022 order and her failure to pay the filing fee; and 19 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and 20 close this action. 21 22 93 | SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: _ September 11, 2023 95 UNITED f£TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28