Brown v. United States Department of Agriculture ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RODNEY T. BROWN, Case No. 1:24-cv-00898-BAM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 11 v. JUDGE TO ACTION 12 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AGRICULTURE, et al., REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 13 FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER Defendants. (Doc. 3) 14 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 15 16 Plaintiff Rodney T. Brown, proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil action August 2, 17 2024. (Doc. 1.) On August 8, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a completed 18 application to proceed in forma paupers or pay the $405.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of 19 service of the Court’s order, as Plaintiff’s form application to proceed in forma pauperis did not 20 provide the Court sufficient information to determine whether Plaintiff was entitled to proceed 21 without prepayment of fees or costs. (Doc. 3.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with 22 the Court’s order would result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action. (Id.) More than 23 thirty days have passed since service of the Court’s order and Plaintiff has not filed an application 24 to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee, or otherwise complied with the Court’s order. 25 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 26 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 27 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 28 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 recommend dismissal of this action. This action 22 can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the Court’s order. 23 Moreover, the matter cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted, awaiting 24 Plaintiff’s 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, Plaintiff may file written objections with 5 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 6 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: September 18, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28