(PC) Harper v. Ayala

Opinion

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

11 DANIEL HARPER, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-01551 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 13 v. ) PAY THE FILING FEE ) 14 M. AYALA, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

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