(PC) Foust v. Ahadzia

Opinion

CARL FOUST, No. 24-cv-00950 DC SCR P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AHMAD AHADZIA, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 15, 2025, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (ECF No. 64 at 5.) The undersigned determined that plaintiff “brought an action on three or more prior occasions that count as strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),” a statute that includes a “three strikes rule” to prevent incarcerated people from repeatedly filing meritless lawsuits, and did not plausibly allege he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. (Id. at 2-4.) District Judge Coggins adopted the findings and recommendations in full on April 14, 2025, and permitted plaintiff thirty days to pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 67.) The order advised that plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee within the time provided will result in dismissal of this action. (Id. at 6.) ] More than thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not paid the filing fees.!_ Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the action be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fees and failure to comply with a court order. See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for failure to pay partial filing fee under IFP statute); Local Rule 110 (failure to comply with court orders). In recommending this action be dismissed, the court has considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). The court finds dismissal appropriate here where plaintiff has received multiple extensions of time to pay the filing fees and has been warned by the district judge that his failure to do so will result in dismissal. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fees and for failure to comply with the court’s order. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: June 6, 2025 mk SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 plaintiff did submit nonresponsive filings consisting of various prison grievances documents, medical records, and filings from his other civil lawsuits. (See ECF Nos. 68, 69, 70.) These filings also support a recommendation of dismissal for failure to comply with court orders, as the undersigned had previously instructed plaintiff to pay the filing fee instead of filing repetitious motions and nonresponsive documents. (See ECF No. 64 at 5-6 (issuing filing restriction during pendency of district judge’s review of findings and recommendations on IFP denial).)