Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00562/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00562-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH THOMAS,

Plaintiff, 1: 06-CV- 0562 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

M. VELLA, et al.,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 15, 2007, Findings and Recommendations were entered,

recommending that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g), and Plaintiff be directed to pay the filing fee in full. On April 11, 2007, the

Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full, denying Plaintiff’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis and directing Plaintiff to pay the $350 filing fee, in full, within thirty days. 

Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. On April 30, 2007, Plaintiff filed a document

titled as objections to the findings and recommendations. The time for filing objections expired

on March 15, 2007. In his objections, Plaintiff contends that in the approximately 60 cases that

Case 1:06-cv-00562-AWI-WMW Document 29 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 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

2

he has filed and have been dismissed, he was not given leave to allege facts to state a claim.

Plaintiff has been denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). Therefore, Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis unless he has alleged facts

indicating that he is in imminent danger of serious injury. Plaintiff has not done so in this case. 

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) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint). The

April 11, 2007, order directing Plaintiff to pay the filing fee cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to

do so would result in dismissal of this action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 for failure to pay the filing fee. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00562-AWI-WMW Document 29 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 2