(PC) Smith v. Fresno County Jail

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEREK M. SMITH, Case No. 1:24-cv-0672 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE 13 v. TO PAY THE FILING FEE 14 FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, (Doc. 11) 15 Defendant.

16 17 On February 27, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee for this action. 18 (Doc. 11.) Despite the Court’s warning that failure to comply with the order would result in 19 dismissal (id. at 2), Plaintiff failed to pay the required filing fees. 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 pay the filing fee, the Court also 22 considered the factors outlined by the Ninth Circuit for terminating sanctions, including: “(1) the 23 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 24 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 25 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 26 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 27 Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 28 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation 1 | always favors dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (district courts 2 | have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). 3 | Because Plaintiff delayed the action though his failure to obey the Court’s order to pay the filing 4 | fee, the third factor also supports dismissal. Further, the Court warned that “[fJailure to pay the 5 || required filing fee as ordered will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.” (Doc. 6 | 11 at 2, emphasis omitted). Notably, the Court need only warn a party once that the matter could 7 | be dismissed to satisfy the requirement of considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 8 | 1262. Consequently, the Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal for Plaintiffs failure to 9 | pay the filing fee as ordered. Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) 10 | (explaining that although “the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits ... 11 | weighs against 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 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _ April 4, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28