Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00922/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00922-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. SMITH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, )

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL )

SECURITY, )

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

1: 07 - CV - 0922 AWI SMS

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH JULY

6, 2007 ORDER AND PAY THE

FILING FEE

This is a civil action brought by state prisoner James E. Smith (“Plaintiff”). In the

complaint, Plaintiff contends that the United States government has violated his and his

children’s rights by depriving Plaintiff of his children. 

On July 6, 2007, the court found that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff could not

proceed in this action without paying the filing fee because on three or more prior occasions

Plaintiff has brought an action that was dismissed on the grounds of being frivolous, malicious,

or failing to state a claim. The court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within thirty days.

Over thirty days has passed and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or filed any document with

the court concerning his filing fee. 

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

action or failure to obey a court order. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th

Cir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution or failure to obey

a court order the court must consider several factors, including: (1) the public’s interest in

Case 1:07-cv-00922-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 08/31/07 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

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 alternatives. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9 Cir. th

1995); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61.

At this time, the court will dismiss this action. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and

this case cannot proceed until the filing fee is paid. The court cannot manage its docket if it

maintains cases in which a plaintiff fails to follow court orders and take necessary steps to

proceed with an action. The public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation weighs

heavily in favor of dismissal of such cases so that the court’s limited resources may be spent on

cases in which the litigant is actually proceeding. Public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits also has little or no weight in actions where the plaintiff is required to pay the filing

fee and the plaintiff is unable or unwilling to pay the filing fee. The availability of less drastic

sanctions has been considered, but given that Plaintiff is required to pay the filing fee by statute,

the court has no effective sanction but to close the case. The court expressly warned Plaintiff

that failure to pay the filing fee within thirty days would result in this action’s dismissal. 

Finally, the risk of prejudice to Defendant also weighs in favor of dismissal because a

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 

See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9 Cir. 1976). th

The court does note that on July 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed an emergency motion with the

court. This motion does not concern Plaintiff’s filing fee. In fact, this motion does not even

concern the subject matter of this lawsuit – the United States’ alleged actions in taking away

Plaintiff’s children. This motion concerns Plaintiff’s current conditions of confinement. 

Because this motion is not related to this action and makes not mention of the filing fee, the court

finds this motion is not grounds to delay dismissing this action.

 

Case 1:07-cv-00922-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 08/31/07 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

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. This action is DISMISSED for failure to comply with the court’s order that

Plaintiff pay the filing fee;

2. The July 16, 2007 motion is DENIED as moot; and 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00922-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 3