Darrell Eugene Johnson v. Calif. Correctional Health Care Services, et al.

E.D. California

Darrell Eugene Johnson v. Calif. Correctional Health Care Services, et al.

DecidedDecember 29, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00921

StatusUnknown

This text of Darrell Eugene Johnson v. Calif. Correctional Health Care Services, et al. (Darrell Eugene Johnson v. Calif. Correctional Health Care Services, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Darrell Eugene Johnson v. Calif. Correctional Health Care Services, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DARRELL EUGENE JOHNSON, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0921 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 13 v. ) PAY THE FILING FEE ) 14 CALIF. CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE ) (Doc. 17) SERVICES, et al., ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 )

17 On November 14, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within thirty days of 18 service of the order after concluding that he was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this 19 matter. (Doc. 17.) The Court warned Plaintiff that, if he failed to pay the filing fee as ordered, this 20 would result in dismissal of this action. (Id. at 2.) However, Plaintiff has failed to timely pay the filing 21 fee. 22 Without payment, the action cannot proceed. See Saddozai v. Davis, 35 F.4th 705, 709 (9th 23 Cir. 2022). Dismissal of this action is therefore appropriate. In reaching this conclusion, the Court has 24 considered the factors outlined by the Ninth Circuit for terminating sanctions, including: “(1) the 25 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) 26 the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 27 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 28 (9th Cir. 1986). The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest 1 managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 2 || (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal” 3 || Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (district courts have inherent interest in 4 || managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). Because Plaintiff delayed th 5 || action though his failure to obey the Court’s order to pay the filing fee, the third factor also supports 6 || dismissal. Finally, the Court’s warning to Plaintiff that the matter could be dismissed satisfies the 7 || requirement of considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Consequently, the 8 || Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal for Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee as ordered. 9 || Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that although “the 10 || public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits ... weighs against dismissal, it is not 11 || sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 13 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 14 15 □□ IS SO ORDERED. 16 |! Dated: December 26, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wun 17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DARRELL EUGENE JOHNSON, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0921 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 13 v. ) PAY THE FILING FEE ) 14 CALIF. CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE ) (Doc. 17) SERVICES, et al., ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 )

17 On November 14, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within thirty days of 18 service of the order after concluding that he was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this 19 matter. (Doc. 17.) The Court warned Plaintiff that, if he failed to pay the filing fee as ordered, this 20 would result in dismissal of this action. (Id. at 2.) However, Plaintiff has failed to timely pay the filing 21 fee. 22 Without payment, the action cannot proceed. See Saddozai v. Davis, 35 F.4th 705, 709 (9th 23 Cir. 2022). Dismissal of this action is therefore appropriate. In reaching this conclusion, the Court has 24 considered the factors outlined by the Ninth Circuit for terminating sanctions, including: “(1) the 25 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) 26 the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 27 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 28 (9th Cir. 1986). The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest 1 managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 2 || (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal” 3 || Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (district courts have inherent interest in 4 || managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). Because Plaintiff delayed th 5 || action though his failure to obey the Court’s order to pay the filing fee, the third factor also supports 6 || dismissal. Finally, the Court’s warning to Plaintiff that the matter could be dismissed satisfies the 7 || requirement of considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Consequently, the 8 || Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal for Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee as ordered. 9 || Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that although “the 10 || public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits ... weighs against dismissal, it is not 11 || sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 13 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 14 15 □□ IS SO ORDERED. 16 |! Dated: December 26, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wun 17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Darrell Eugene Johnson v. Calif. Correctional Health Care Services, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darrell-eugene-johnson-v-calif-correctional-health-care-services-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack