Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01593/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01593-2/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

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

Plaintiff Michael Salinas (“Plaintiff”) is a Fresno County Jail inmate, proceeding pro se in this 

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on October 19, 2015. 

On October 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) On 

October 21, 2015, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis 

without prejudice on the grounds that he submitted an incomplete application, and ordered Plaintiff to 

submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within forty-five 

(45) days. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff failed to submit a completed application or pay the filing fee in 

response to the Court’s order. On January 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a consent to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction. (EDF NO. 6.) 

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond, on October 24, 2016, the Court issued an order

directing Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the filing fee in full, file a 

MICHAEL SALINAS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAILHOUSE 

FACILITY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01593-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE 

TO PAY FILING FEE OR FILE APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, FAILURE TO 

OBEY COURT ORDERS, AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(ECF Nos. 4, 7)

Case 1:15-cv-01593-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 3
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

notice of voluntary dismissal or show cause why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice 

within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 7.) The relevant time period for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s 

order has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, 

paid the filing fee, or filed a response to the Court’s order to show cause. 

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that 

power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing 

Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, 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 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 

128, 130-33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988); see also In re 

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(standards governing dismissal for failure to comply with court orders). 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 

PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted).

The Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s 

need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This action has been pending since October

2015 and can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the Court’s 

orders. Moreover, the matter cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted, awaiting 

Plaintiff’s compliance. Indeed, a civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the filing 

fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. As for the risk of 

prejudice, the law presumes prejudice from unreasonable delay. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227-28. 

Case 1:15-cv-01593-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/21/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Regarding the fourth factor, while public policy favors disposition on the merits and therefore weighs 

against dismissal, it is Plaintiff’s own conduct which is at issue here and which has stalled the case. 

Id. at 1228.

Finally, there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory. A monetary sanction has little 

to no benefit in a case in which Plaintiff has ceased responding to the Court’s orders. Further, Plaintiff 

was warned that his failure to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee 

would result in dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff was also warned that his failure to 

respond to the order to show cause would result in dismissal of this action 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. (ECF No. 7.) A warning that the failure to obey a court order will 

result in dismissal can meet the consideration of alternatives requirement. In re PPA, at 1229. 

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to 

obey the Court’s order, failure to prosecute, and failure to submit an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis or pay the filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01593-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/21/16 Page 3 of 3