Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01552/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01552-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

SAVOIE, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:21-cv-01552-ADA-GSA-PC

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE 

DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S 

ORDER

(ECF No. 21.)

OBJECTIONS DUE ON OR BEFORE MAY 

26, 2023

Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 3, 2023, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to pay the $402.00 filing 

fee in full by April 14, 2023. (ECF No. 21.) To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, and the 

time for doing so has passed. 

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 

Case 1:21-cv-01552-KES-GSA Document 24 Filed 05/08/23 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

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)), and here, the 

action has been pending since October 21, 2021. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s 

order may reflect Plaintiff’s refusal or inability to pay the filing fee. However, the Court cannot 

continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not comply with the Court’s 

orders. 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 for this case 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. Monetary sanctions in this 

circumstance are 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, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, 

without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s order of March 3, 2023. 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). On or before May 26, 2023, 

Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 

Case 1:21-cv-01552-KES-GSA Document 24 Filed 05/08/23 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

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: May 6, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01552-KES-GSA Document 24 Filed 05/08/23 Page 3 of 3