(PC) Winston v. Homes

Opinion

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

11 LEANTHONY WINSTON, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0824 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 13 v. ) PAY THE FILING FEE ) 14 LT. HOLMES, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

17 On October 31, 2024, 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.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for 19 reconsideration and again ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee. (Docs. 14, 15.) Thereafter, Plaintiff 20 filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 19.) On 21 May 23, 2025, this Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within 21 days. (Doc. 20 at 1.) The 22 Court informed Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to do so will result in dismissal of the action.” (Id.) Despite 23 this warning, Plaintiff failed to pay the required filing fee. Without such payment, the action cannot 24 proceed before the Court. See Saddozai v. Davis, 35 F.4th 705, 709 (9th Cir. 2022). 25 In finding dismissal is appropriate, the Court has considered the factors outlined by the Ninth 26 Circuit for terminating sanctions, including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 27 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the 28 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 1 || sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). The public’s interest in 2 || expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor 3 || of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest 4 expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 5 || 1261 (th Cir. 1992) (district courts have an inherent interest in managing their dockets without beins 6 || subject to noncompliant litigants). Because Plaintiff delayed the action though his failure to obey the 7 || Court’s order to pay the filing fee, the third factor also supports dismissal. Finally, the Court’s warnir 8 || to Plaintiff that the matter could be dismissed satisfies the requirement of considering alternative 9 || sanctions. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Consequently, the Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissa 10 || for Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee as ordered. Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 13 11 |]n.2 (9th 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, the 13 || 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 17 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 1g || Dated: June 19, 2025 byt |“ Luvglnr Jeywhifer LYThurston 19 ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28