Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01642/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01642-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

MARY J. BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SELECT SERVICES PORTFOLIO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-1642-LJO-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

COURT ORDER

TWENTY DAY DEADLINE

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Mary Bryant, proceeding pro se, filed this action on October 31, 2016, along 

with an application to proceed in this action without prepayment of fees. Upon review of the 

application, the Court found that Plaintiff had not adequately completed her application. As 

Plaintiff’s application was not adequately completed the Court could not determine if she was 

entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees. Therefore, Plaintiff was ordered to file a long 

form application to proceed without prepayment of fees or pay the filing fee within twenty days 

of November 3, 2016. (ECF No. 3.) More than twenty days have passed Plaintiff has not 

responded to the Court’s November 3, 2016 order.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:16-cv-01642-LJO-SAB Document 4 Filed 12/07/16 Page 1 of 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

2

II.

DISCUSSION

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). 

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 

of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

Plaintiff was ordered to either file a long form application to proceed in forma pauperis or

pay the filing fee within twenty days of the November 3, 2016 order. In the order, Plaintiff was 

advised that failure to comply with the order would result in this action being dismissed. (ECF 

No. 3.) More than twenty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed the application to proceed 

in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee in this action, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order requiring her to pay the filing fee or demonstrate 

that she is eligible to proceed without prepayment of the fee. For this reason, the Court 

recommends that this action be dismissed.

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Case 1:16-cv-01642-LJO-SAB Document 4 Filed 12/07/16 Page 2 of 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

3

prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma

pauperis in compliance with the Court’s order. 

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 twenty

(20) 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). The parties are 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: December 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01642-LJO-SAB Document 4 Filed 12/07/16 Page 3 of 3