Edwin O. Garcia v. Landevazzo

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

EDWIN O. GARCIA, No. CV 20-01754-DOC (DFM)

Plaintiff, Order Dismissing Action for Lack of Prosecution and Failure to Pay the v. Filing Fee as Previously Ordered

LANDEVAZZO et al,

Defendants.

Edwin O. Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Men’s Central Jail in Los Angeles, California. On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing pro se a Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkts. 1, 2. On April 22, 2020, Magistrate Judge McCormick found that Plaintiff appeared to have at least three prior civil actions dismissed because they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, and ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why he should not be denied IFP status under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (“PLRA”) three-strikes rule. See Dkt. 9. Plaintiff was instructed to explain why his prior dismissals should not be counted as strikes or show that he qualifies for the “imminent danger” exception. Id. Plaintiff did not respond. Accordingly, on June 12, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP request and ordered him to pay the full filing fee of $350 within thirty-five days, otherwise the action would be dismissed without further notice. See Dkt. 10. Plaintiff's deadline was July 17, 2020, and the Court’s docket does not reflect that he has paid the filing fee or sought an extension of time in which to pay it. Accordingly, as it warned Plaintiff it would, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. See Butz v. Mendoza-Powers, 474 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that a district court may dismiss an action “for failure to pay the filing fee or to comply with the court’s orders”); Irby v. Warner, 609 Fed. App’x 423, 423 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming district court’s denial of pro se prisoner’s request for IFP status and subsequent dismissal of his case without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee). Pursuant to Local Rule 41-1 and this Court’s inherent authority, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice due to Plaintiff's lack of prosecution, including his failure to pay the filing fee by the deadline ordered.

Dated: August 11, 2020 7 A DAVID O. CARTER United States District Judge Presented by:

DOUGLAS F. McCORMICK United States Magistrate Judge

ry