Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01865/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01865-1/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

BRANDON A. FAVOR aka 

BRANDON FAVOR-EL,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MICHELLE ROME, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-01865-LJO-EPG-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO 

OBEY COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 4.) 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY 

(30) DAYS

On December 18, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either pay the 

$400.00 filing fee for this action or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, within 

forty-five days. (ECF No. 4.) The forty-five day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not 

paid the filing fee, submitted an 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)).

“„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 

Case 1:15-cv-01865-LJO-EPG Document 8 Filed 03/31/16 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

action has been pending since December 11, 2015. 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 an 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, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed 

based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court=s order of December 18, 2015. 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 thirty (30) days after being 

served with these findings and recommendations, 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 failure to file objections within the specified time

///

Case 1:15-cv-01865-LJO-EPG Document 8 Filed 03/31/16 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

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: March 30, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01865-LJO-EPG Document 8 Filed 03/31/16 Page 3 of 3