(SS) De Camp v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER NORMAN DE CAMP, Case No. 1:22-cv-01289-ADA-BAM 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 13 v. (Doc. 4) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Christopher Norman De Camp (“Plaintiff”), proceeding with counsel, seeks 18 review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. 1.) On December 6, 2022, 19 the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs. (Doc. 20 4.) The Court directed Plaintiff to pay the $402.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action 21 within thirty (30) days following service of the order. (Id. at 4.) The Court warned Plaintiff that 22 the failure to comply with the order may result in dismissal of the action. (Id.) More than thirty 23 days have passed since service of the Court’s order and Plaintiff has not paid the $402.00 filing 24 fee for this action. The Court therefore will recommend dismissal of this action based on 25 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a Court order, failure to pay the filing fee in full, and failure to 26 prosecute. 27 /// 28 1 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 2 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 3 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 4 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 5 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 6 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 7 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 8 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 9 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 10 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) 11 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 12 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1) 13 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 14 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 15 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 16 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); see also In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability 17 Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (standards governing dismissal for failure to 18 comply with court orders). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not 19 conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. Id. (citation omitted). 20 A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of the filing fee unless the party is 21 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. As Plaintiff has failed to 22 pay the filing fee, and his request to proceed in forma pauperis has been denied, the Court is left 23 with no alternative but to dismiss this action. This action can proceed no further without 24 Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the Court’s order. Moreover, the matter cannot 25 simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted, awaiting Plaintiff’s compliance. 26 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED based 27 on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, failure to pay the filing fee and failure to 28 prosecute this action. 1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 2 Judge assigned to the case, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after 3 being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 4 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file objections within the specified 6 time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 7 appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 8 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: January 10, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28