Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00973/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00973-3/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

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

VICTORIA GREEN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

Defendants.

1:23-cv-00973-JLT-EPG (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE 

DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT 

ORDERS AND TO PROSECUTE THIS CASE

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

Plaintiff Victoria Green proceeds with counsel in this civil rights lawsuit filed pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with three orders to file an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) or pay the $402 filing fee, the Court will recommend that this 

case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and to prosecute 

this case. (ECF Nos. 5, 8, 10). 

I. BACKGROUND

This civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was filed by six state prisoners. (ECF Nos. 

1, 2). However, on June 29, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin issued an order, 

concluding that the Plaintiffs could not proceed together in a single action and ordering (1) the 

Clerk to open a new case so that each Plaintiff could proceed individually; (2) the Clerk to

randomly assign each new case to a Magistrate Judge; (3) the Clerk to file each Plaintiff’s in 

forma pauperis (IFP) application in the appropriate case; and (4) for each Plaintiff to file a new 

Case 1:23-cv-00973-JLT-GSA Document 11 Filed 09/11/23 Page 1 of 4
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

amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal within forty-five days. (ECF No. 1).

This order led to the undersigned being assigned to the instant case involving Plaintiff 

Victoria Green. While the Clerk filed an IFP application on this case’s docket (ECF No. 3), that 

IFP application relates to a different Plaintiff, Charlene Stith, who now proceeds individually in a 

separate case, 1:23-cv-00947-ADA-GSA. Moreover, it does not appear that Victoria Green ever 

filed an IFP application in the original case; rather, it appears that Charlene Stith mistakenly filed 

two IFP applications. (ECF Nos. 4, 8 - 1:23-cv-00947-ADA-GSA). 

Based on these circumstances, the Court issued an order on June 30, 2023, ordering 

Plaintiff to submit an IFP application or pay the filing fee within 45 days. (ECF No. 5). After 

Plaintiff failed to do so, the Court issued another order on August 18, 2023, granting Plaintiff a 

sua sponte extension to August 28, 2023, to submit an IFP application or pay the filing fee. (ECF 

No. 8). After Plaintiff again failed to do so, the Court issued a minute order on August 29, 2023,

granting Plaintiff another sua sponte extension to September 6, 2023, to submit an IFP 

application or pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 10). However, Plaintiff has still failed to file an IFP 

application or pay the filing fee. Notably, in each of its three orders, the Court warned Plaintiff 

that failure to comply with the order could result in dismissal of this action. (ECF Nos. 5, 8, 10). 

II. ANALYSIS

“In determining whether to dismiss a[n] [action] for failure to prosecute or failure to 

comply with a court 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)). 

“‘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)). Accordingly, this 

factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As to the Court’s need to manage its docket, “[t]he trial judge is in the best position to 

determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with docket management and the 

public interest. . . . It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to 

Case 1:23-cv-00973-JLT-GSA Document 11 Filed 09/11/23 Page 2 of 4
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

routine noncompliance of litigants. . . .” Id. Plaintiff has failed to file a completed in forma 

pauperis application or otherwise pay the filing fee. This failure is delaying this case and 

interfering with docket management. Therefore, the second factor weighs 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, 191 F.3d at 991). However, “delay 

inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” 

id. at 643, and it is Plaintiff’s failure to file an IFP application or otherwise pay the filing fee that 

is causing delay and preventing this case from progressing. The Court is unable to proceed unless 

Plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis status or pays the filing fee. Therefore, the third factor 

weighs in favor of dismissal. 

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, given that Plaintiff has failed to comply with 

three Court orders, despite being warned of possible dismissal, there is little available to the Court 

that would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 

unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. At this stage of the proceedings, excluding 

evidence would be a meaningless sanction. Additionally, because the dismissal being considered 

in this case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short of using the harshest possible 

sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor weighs against 

dismissal. Id. After weighing the factors, the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice is 

appropriate.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the above reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that: 

1. This case be dismissed, without prejudice, because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply 

with Court orders and prosecute this case; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Case 1:23-cv-00973-JLT-GSA Document 11 Filed 09/11/23 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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: September 11, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00973-JLT-GSA Document 11 Filed 09/11/23 Page 4 of 4