Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00299/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00299-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH THOMAS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FEDERAL CONGRESS MEMBER )

ENACTMENT OF PLRA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 05-0299 AWI SMS

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action alleging a violation of his

civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. 

On March 22, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and a recommendation that

recommended the court deny Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief from the requirement of

paying a filing fee and direct Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or face dismissal of the action.

Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendation. 

On April 22, 2005, the court adopted the findings and recommendations, found

Plaintiff ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis, and denied Plaintiff’s request for an order

permitting him to proceed in forma pauperis. The court ordered Plaintiff to pay the $250.00

filing fee within twenty days. The court informed Plaintiff that failure to pay the filing fee

would result in this action’s dismissal.

Over twenty days have passed and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or otherwise

contacted the court.

Case 1:05-cv-00299-AWI -SMS Document 17 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 See Thomas v. Galaza, CV-F-00-5345-AWI-LJO-P (dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous on June 26,

2000); Thomas v. Kim, CV-F-99-6553-AWI-HGB-P (dismissed for failure to state a claim on August 29, 2000); and

Thomas v. Galaza, CV-F-00-5348-OWW-LJO-P (dismissed for failure to state a claim on November 14, 2000).

2

As previously explained by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff is required to pay the $250

filing fee for this action. In imposing the fee, the court is proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1914, which requires parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding to pay a filing fee

of $250.00. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff is not eligible to proceed in

forma pauperis because on three occasions Plaintiff has brought an action that was dismissed

on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g).1 Despite the court’s order requiring Plaintiff to pay the filing fee of $250 within

twenty days, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or responded to the court’s order.

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

an action or failure to obey a court order. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment

of complaint). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution or failure

to obey a court order the court must consider several factors, including: (1) the public’s

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3)

the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d

52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61.

At this time, the court has no choice but to dismiss this action. Plaintiff has not paid

the filing fee and the case cannot proceed until Plaintiff pays the filing fee. The court cannot

manage its docket if it maintains cases in which a plaintiff fails to comply with court orders

and pay the filing fee. The public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation weighs

heavily in favor of dismissal of such cases so that the court’s limited resources may be spent

on cases in which the litigant is actually proceeding. Public policy favoring disposition of

Case 1:05-cv-00299-AWI -SMS Document 17 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

cases on their merits also has little or no weight in actions where the plaintiff fails to comply

with court orders and pay the filing fee. The availability of less drastic sanctions has been

considered, but given that Plaintiff refuses to pay the filing fee and this action cannot proceed

without the filing fee, the court has no effective sanction but to close the case. The court

expressly warned Plaintiff that failure to pay the filing fee would result in this action’s

dismissal. Finally, the risk of prejudice to Defendant also weighs in favor of dismissal

because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in

prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. This action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order to

pay the filing fee; and 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00299-AWI -SMS Document 17 Filed 05/10/05 Page 3 of 3