(PC) Scott v. Condie

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 12, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01403
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FLOYD SCOTT, Case No. 1:24-cv-01403 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING 13 v. FEE AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER 14 CONDIE, et al., (Doc. 9) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 24, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee to proceed with 18 this action. (Doc. 9.) Despite the Court’s warning that failure to comply with the order would 19 result in dismissal (id. at 1), Plaintiff failed to pay the required fee. Without such payment, the 20 action cannot proceed before the Court. See Saddozai v. Davis, 35 F.4th 705, 709 (9th Cir. 2022). 21 In finding dismissal is appropriate for the failure to obey the order to pay the filing fee, the 22 Court also considered the factors outlined by the Ninth Circuit for terminating sanctions, 23 including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 24 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 25 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson 26 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving 27 this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See 28 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious 1 | resolution of litigation always favors dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th 2 | Cir. 1992) (district courts have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject 3 | 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. Further, the Court 5 | warned that “[flailure to pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of this action” (Doc. 9 at 2, 6 | emphasis omitted), and the Court need only warn a party once that the matter could be dismissed 7 | to satisfy the requirement of considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Thus, the 8 | Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal for Plaintiffs failure to pay the filing fee as 9 | ordered. Malone vy. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that 10 | although “the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits .. . weighs against 11 | dismissal, it is not sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”). 12 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 14 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 15 ie | IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _February 12, 2025 Charis [Tourn 8 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28