Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02011/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02011-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AKIKA PARKER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FACEBOOK, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-2011 TLN AC (PS) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On September 30, 

2016, the court denied plaintiff’s application to proceed in form pauperis (“IFP”) because the 

application omitted information about plaintiff’s income. ECF No. 4. The court granted plaintiff 

30 days to renew the IFP application with all entries on the form completed, or to pay the filing 

fee. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply could lead to a recommendation that the action 

be dismissed. 

 Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s order. Instead, plaintiff filed requests for entry 

of default against defendants Facebook and Yahoo. ECF Nos. 5, 7. The requests were properly 

denied by the Clerk of the Court. ECF Nos. 6, 8. 

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for failure to pay the filing fee, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with 

Case 2:16-cv-02011-TLN-AC Document 9 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 2
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

the court’s order. See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal 

for failure to pay partial filing fee under IFP statute); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (lack of prosecution); 

Local Rule 110 (failure to comply with court orders). 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one 

(21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: November 8, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-02011-TLN-AC Document 9 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 2