Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01642/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01642-6/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 PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PAY 

FILING FEE

(ECF No. 12)

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

I.

BACKGROUND

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

with her complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in this action without prepayment of 

fees. On December 20, 2016, a findings and recommendations issued finding that Plaintiff had 

not demonstrated that she was entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees in this action. The 

findings and recommendations was adopted on January 12, 2017; and Plaintiff was ordered to 

pay the filing fee within thirty days. More than thirty days have passed; and Plaintiff has not 

paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to the January 12, 2017 order. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:16-cv-01642-LJO-SAB Document 15 Filed 02/21/17 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 pay the filing fee within thirty days of the January 12, 2017 

order. In the order, Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the order would result in 

this action being dismissed. (ECF No. 12 at 2.) More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff 

has not 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. 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 

prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee in compliance with the Court’s order. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

Case 1:16-cv-01642-LJO-SAB Document 15 Filed 02/21/17 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

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen

(14) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. 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). 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, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01642-LJO-SAB Document 15 Filed 02/21/17 Page 3 of 3