(PC) Brookins v. Martinez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 8, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01158
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARRY LEE BROOKINS, Case No. 1:24-cv-01158 JLT SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE 13 v. TO PAY THE FILING FEE 14 L. MARTINEZ, et al., (Doc. 16)

15 Defendants.

16 17 On March 14, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee for this action, 18 consistent with the prior orders denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis and denying 19 his request for reconsideration. (Doc. 16; see also Docs. 7, 9.) Despite the Court’s warning that 20 failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal (id. at 2), Plaintiff failed to pay the 21 required filing fees. Without such payment, the action cannot proceed before the Court. See 22 Saddozai v. Davis, 35 F.4th 705, 709 (9th Cir. 2022). 23 In finding dismissal is appropriate for the failure to pay the filing fee, the Court also 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; 26 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 27 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 28 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 1 | Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 2 | 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation 3 | always favors dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (district courts 4 | have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). 5 | Because Plaintiff delayed the action though his failure to obey the Court’s order to pay the filing 6 | fee, the third factor also supports dismissal. Further, the Court warned that “[flailure to pay the 7 | filing fee in full will result in the dismissal of without prejudice for failure to comply with a 8 | Court’s order.” (Doc. 16 at 2, emphasis omitted). Notably, the Court need only warn a party once 9 | that the matter could be dismissed to satisfy the requirement of considering alternative sanctions. 10 | Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Consequently, the Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal for 11 | Plaintiffs failure to pay the filing fee as ordered. Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 12 | 133 n.2 (Oth Cir. 1987) (explaining that although “the public policy favoring disposition of cases 13 | on their merits ... weighs against dismissal, it is not sufficient to outweigh the other four 14 | factors”). Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 15 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 16 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _April 8, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28