Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00204/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00204-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CANDACE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

MCDONALDS INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00204-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

COURT ORDER FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO PAY 

FILING FEE

(ECF No. 5)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

Candace Smith (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in this action on 

February 15, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in this action and instead 

filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.) 

Upon review of the application, the Court found Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis was incomplete. (ECF No. 3.) Specifically, Plaintiff stated she was currently 

employed but failed to state her take-home salary or wages. (Id. at 1.) On February 20, 2024, 

the Court issued an order notifying Plaintiff she must submit a complete application if she wishes 

for her application to proceed in forma pauperis to be considered by the Court and ordered a 

completed short form application be submitted within thirty (30) days of service of the order. 

(Id.) 

Case 1:24-cv-00204-KES-SAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/24 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

On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a second application to proceed in formal pauperis. 

(ECF No. 4.) However, Plaintiff stated she is not employed due to a car accident as of February 

7, 2024, which is a different response than that provided in her first application filed on February 

15, 2024. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff also responded “no” to question number 3(a) requesting 

information regarding whether she has received income from a business, profession, or other 

self-employment in the past twelve months. (Id.) If Plaintiff was employed “as of February 7, 

2024” as stated in question two, she should have indicated her income in the past twelve months 

in response to question three. On February 26, 2024, the Court issued an order stating it cannot 

determine from the information provided in both short form applications whether Plaintiff is 

entitled to proceed in this action without prepayment of fees. (ECF No. 5.) Accordingly, the 

Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without 

Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239 or, alternatively, pay the filing fee in this action 

within thirty days. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has not filed an application nor paid the filing fee by the 

deadline to do so. 

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure 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.” The Court has the inherent power to 

control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 

including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 

2000); Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010). 

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

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. 

United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 

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

Case 1:24-cv-00204-KES-SAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/24 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

of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a pretrial order, 

the Court must weigh “(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 

sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 

(9th Cir. 2006); Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 

1986). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that must be 

met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability 

Litigation, 460 F.3d at 1226.

In this instance the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation and the 

Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. Plaintiff has neither filed a

long form application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee, nor otherwise responded 

to the Court’s order. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the orders of the Court hinders the Court’s 

ability to move this action towards disposition and indicates that Plaintiff does not intend to 

diligently litigate this action.

Since it appears that Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently there arises a 

rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendants in this action. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 

1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). The risk of prejudice to the defendants also weighs in favor of 

dismissal. 

The public policy in favor of deciding cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors 

in favor of dismissal. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to move this action forward. This action can 

proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the 

action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. In this instance, the 

fourth factor does not outweigh Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

Finally, a court’s warning to a party that their failure to obey the court’s order will result 

in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s February 26, 2024 order 

Case 1:24-cv-00204-KES-SAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/24 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

expressly stated: “Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action.” (ECF 

No. 5.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal of this action would result from 

noncompliance with the Court’s order. Further, Plaintiff may still file an application to proceed 

in forma pauperis during the objection period and the Court will consider the application. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for 

Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or file a completed application to proceed in forma 

pauperis in this action, failure to abide by the Court’s order, and failure to prosecute. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen

(14) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to these

findings and recommendations with the court. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will 

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 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: April 5, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00204-KES-SAB Document 7 Filed 04/08/24 Page 4 of 4