Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00640/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00640-3/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

MATTHEW A. LAWRIE,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

SERGEANT D. WILLIAMS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:19-cv-00640-DAD-GSA-PC

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER, FAILURE TO PAY 

THE FILING FEE, AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 14.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS

Matthew A. Lawrie (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing

this action. (ECF No. 1.) 

On September 23, 2019, the court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and required Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee 

for this action in full within thirty days. (ECF No. 6.) The thirty-day time period has now expired

and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee.

1

 

1 On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff appealed the court’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. 

(ECF No. 7.) On January 28, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s appeal for failure to 

prosecute. (ECF No. 12.) 

Case 1:19-cv-00640-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 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

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply 

with the directives set forth in its order, “the Court must weigh the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; 

and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 

291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 

1992) (failure to comply with court orders). see also In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 

1994) (failure to prosecute).

“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’”

id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the 

action has been pending since May 13, 2019. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court’s order 

may reflect Plaintiff’s disinterest in prosecuting this case or his inability to pay the filing fee. In 

such an instance, the court cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who 

will not or cannot resolve payment of the filing fee for his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second 

factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently 

increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and it 

is Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee for this action that is causing delay. Therefore, the third 

factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little 

available to the court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 

court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Monetary sanctions in this 

circumstance are of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of 

evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in 

this case is without prejudice, the court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction 

of dismissal with prejudice.

///

Case 1:19-cv-00640-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 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

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always 

weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of September 23, 2019, failure to 

pay the filing fee, and failure to prosecute, without prejudice to refiling upon prepayment of the 

required filing fee. 

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

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 

(14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 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, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00640-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 3