(PC) Carroll v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TREMAINE CARROLL, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00627 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE 13 v. TO PAY THE FILING FEE 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (Doc. 11) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On February 27, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee for this action 18 within 30 days. (Doc. 11.) Despite the Court’s warning that failure to comply with the order 19 would result in dismissal (id. at 3), Plaintiff failed to pay the required filing fees. Without such 20 payment, the action cannot proceed before the Court. See Saddozai v. Davis, 35 F.4th 705, 709 21 (9th Cir. 2022). 22 Plaintiff objected to the Court’s order, asserting that she received it late because “CDCR is 23 circumventing [Plaintiff’s] due process rights.” (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff also states that she is “in 24 dispute with two law firms that are supposed to be representing her and should have been doing 25 so in this matter.” (Id.) Petitioner concludes by requesting 90 days to pay the filing fee. (Id.) 26 Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for the requested extension of time. Though 27 Plaintiff may be represented by law firms in her other pending actions, this lawsuit was filed 28 1 | nearly a year ago, and has proceeded entirely pro se. At no point did any counsel make an 2 | appearance in this case, and Plaintiff presented no evidence that any attorney had a contractual 3 | obligation to do so. Thus, her assertion that she needs more time to pay the fee because she is in a 4 | dispute with the law firms that “were supposed to be representing her . . . in this matter” is 5 || without foundation. (Doc. 12 at 1.) 6 In finding dismissal is appropriate for the failure to pay the filing fee, the Court has 7 | considered the factors outlined by the Ninth Circuit for terminating sanctions, including: “(1) the 8 | public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 9 | (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 10 | their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 11 | 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 12 | Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 13 | 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation 14 || always favors dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (district courts 15 | have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). 16 | In addition, the Court’s warning to Plaintiff that the matter could be dismissed satisfies the 17 | requirement of considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Consequently, the 18 || Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal under the circumstances. Malone v. U.S. Postal 19 | Service, 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that although “the public policy 20 | favoring disposition of cases on their merits . . . weighs against dismissal, it is not sufficient to 21 | outweigh the other four factors”). Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 22 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 23 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ April 27, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28