(PC) Stone v. Horn

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 8, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01249
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM JAY STONE, Case No. 1:24-cv-01249 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE 13 v. TO PAY THE FILING FEE 14 HORN, Defendant. 15 16 17 On October 17, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or submit an 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) Despite the Court’s warning that failure to 19 comply with the order would result in dismissal (id. at 1), Plaintiff failed to submit the IFP 20 application or pay the required 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 for the failure to pay the filing fee, the Court also 23 considered the factors outlined by the Ninth Circuit for terminating sanctions, including: “(1) the 24 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 25 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 26 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 27 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 28 Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 1 | 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation 2 | always favors dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (district courts 3 | have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). 4 | Because Plaintiff delayed the action though his failure to obey the Court’s order denying his 5 || application to proceed in forma pauperis, the third factor also supports dismissal. Further, the 6 | Court warned that “[flailure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action” (Doc. 7 | 3 at 1, emphasis omitted), and the Court need only warn a party once that the matter could be 8 | dismissed to satisfy the requirement of considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 9 | Thus, the Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal for Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee 10 | as ordered. Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that 11 | although “the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits .. . weighs against 12 | dismissal, it is not sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”). 13 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 15 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1g | Dated: _January 8, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28