In Re Mamady B. Cisse ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 In re MAMADY B. CISSE, Case No. 20-cv-01694-BAS-WVG 11 Bankruptcy No. 17-04821-LT13 Debtor. 12 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 13 MAMADY B. CISSE, 14 Appellant, 15 v. 16 WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., as servicing agent for U.S. Bank National 17 Association, as Indenture Trustee for Citigroup Mortgage, 18 Appellee. 19 20 Appellant Mamady B. Cisse, proceeding pro se, commenced this bankruptcy appeal 21 on August 31, 2020 and moved for a ruling on a fee waiver request. (ECF Nos. 1, 8.) The 22 Court, in agreement with the Bankruptcy Court’s certification that the appeal was not taken 23 in good faith, denied Appellant’s fee waiver request and required that Appellant pay the 24 filing fee by November 16, 2020. (ECF No. 10.) The Court warned Appellant that failing 25 to timely pay the fee would result in dismissal of the appeal without prejudice. (Id.) 26 As of the date of this Order, Appellant has not paid the filing fee for this case, 27 requested an extension of time to do so, or otherwise taken any action in this case. 28 Nonpayment of a filing fee is a sufficient basis for dismissal of an action, particularly when 1 Court cautioned Appellant that it would dismiss the action if the filing fee was not paic 2 ||by the deadline. See Crump vy. Fritter, No. LA CV 15-06041 VBF (FFM), 2016 WL 3 118260455, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2016) (citing cases); see also Harris v. Madden, No 4 |] 1:19-CV-01216-DAD-SKO (PC), 2020 WL 1139464, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2020) 5 || (dismissing action without prejudice for failing to pay required filing fee and obey a cour 6 || order); Nicholas vy. All-State Sec. LLC, No. CIV. 11-00005 LEK-KS, 2011 WL 1322273, a 7 (D. Haw. Apr. 5, 2011) (citing In re Perroton, 958 F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1992) and Olivare: 8 || v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995)) (“This Court may dismiss Plaintiff’s action basec 9 his failure to pay the required filing fee.”). 10 After weighing the relevant factors, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-6] 11 Cir. 1992), the Court finds that Appellant’s failure to timely pay the filing fee ir 12 || accordance with the Court’s order warrants dismissal. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES 13 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action. See Crump, 2016 WL 8260455, at *2 (citing cases) 14 || The Clerk is instructed to close this case. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 / ul 17 || DATED: December 18, 2020 Cypilig _| Hohe A 18 United States Daarict Jalge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28