(PC) Wilson v. Morales

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DAVID W. WILSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-01113 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE 14 RAUL MORALES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Previously, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee after finding he was not 18 entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. (Doc. 13.) After Plaintiff’s appeal to the 19 Ninth Circuit was dismissed, this Court again directed Plaintiff to pay the fling fee. (Doc. 21.) 20 The Court also warned Plaintiff that failure to do so would “result in dismissal of the action.” (Id. 21 at 1, emphasis omitted.) Despite this warning, Plaintiff failed to pay the required filing fee. 22 Without such payment, the action cannot proceed before the Court. See Saddozai v. Davis, 35 23 F.4th 705, 709 (9th Cir. 2022). 24 In finding dismissal is appropriate, the Court has considered the factors outlined by the 25 Ninth Circuit for terminating sanctions, including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 26 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 27 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 28 availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1 | 1986). The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in 2 || managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish y. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 3 | 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 4 | dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (district courts have an 5 | inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). 6 | Because Plaintiff delayed the action though his failure to obey the Court’s order to pay the filing 7 | fee, the third factor also supports dismissal. Finally, the Court’s warning to Plaintiff that the 8 | matter could be dismissed satisfies the requirement of considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik, 9 | 963 F.2d at 1262. Consequently, the Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal for □□□□□□□□□□□ 10 | failure to pay the filing fee as ordered. Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th 11 | Cir. 1987) (explaining that although “the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 12 | merits ... weighs against dismissal, it is not sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”). Thus, 13 | the Court ORDERS: 14 1. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 15 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate pending motions and to close this case. 16 1g | Dated: __July 16, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28