Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00192/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00192-5/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

RAYSHON THOMAS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

PEREZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:16-cv-00192-DAD-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY 

COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 17.) 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN TWENTY

(20) DAYS

On January 20, 2017, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to submit a new, 

appropriately completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the $400.00 filing fee 

for this action within twenty days. (ECF No. 17.) The twenty-day time period has expired and 

Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, submitted a new application or otherwise responded to the 

court’s order.

In determining whether to dismiss this action for 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)).

Case 1:16-cv-00192-DAD-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/24/17 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

“‘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 February 5, 2016. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court’s 

order may reflect Plaintiff’s disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the court 

cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not 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 or submit a new application to proceed in forma 

pauperis 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. Given that Plaintiff is a 

prisoner who has not paid the filing fee for this action, the court finds monetary sanctions 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.

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

weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed based on 

Plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of January 20, 2017. 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 twenty (20) days from 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 

Case 1:16-cv-00192-DAD-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/24/17 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

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 24, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00192-DAD-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/24/17 Page 3 of 3