Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00551/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00551-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID LESLIE MANNING, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. STAINER, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00551-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

PAY FILING FEE OR FILE APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 

FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER, 

AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF Nos. 11 and 12)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state hospital detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 7, 2016, he filed an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis by a prisoner. (ECF No. 8.) On April 25, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff 

to file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis, or to pay the $400 filing 

fee within thirty days. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff has not done so.

Additionally, on May 2, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and 

dismissed it with leave to amend on the ground his claims were barred by Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994). Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or 

notice of voluntary dismissal as ordered by the Court.

Case 1:16-cv-00551-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Based on these failures, on June 10, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show 

cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, failure to obey a court order, and failure to 

prosecute. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff did not respond and the time for doing so has passed.

A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the filing fee or a 

completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to submit the appropriate application to proceed in forma pauperis or 

pay the applicable filing fee, dismissal of this action is appropriate. See In re 

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 

2006); Local Rule 110.

Dismissal also is appropriate due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely file an amended 

complaint. Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with 

these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of 

any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the 

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may 

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v. 

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 

on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 

local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for 

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a complaint); 

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply 

with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 

with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 

Case 1:16-cv-00551-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 4
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

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several 

factors: (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. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 

F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 

factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting 

this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor --

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the 

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute 

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not 

paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions 

of little use.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT this action be dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or file a completed application to proceed 

in forma pauperis, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute.

The findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendations, the 

parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” A party may 

respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after 

being served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised that failure to 

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Case 1:16-cv-00551-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 06/29/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00551-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 06/29/16 Page 4 of 4