Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01249/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01249-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Horn
Defendant
Adam Jay Stone
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

ADAM JAY STONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

HORN,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01249 JLT EPG (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE 

TO PAY THE FILING FEE

On October 17, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or submit an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) Despite the Court’s warning that failure to 

comply with the order would result in dismissal (id. at 1), Plaintiff failed to submit the IFP 

application or pay the required fee. Without such payment, the action cannot proceed before the 

Court. See Saddozai v. Davis, 35 F.4th 705, 709 (9th Cir. 2022). 

In finding dismissal is appropriate for the failure to pay the filing fee, the Court also 

considered the factors outlined by the Ninth Circuit for terminating sanctions, including: “(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 the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 

1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 

Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 

Case 1:24-cv-01249-JLT-EPG Document 5 Filed 01/08/25 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

27

28

2

191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation 

always favors dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (district courts 

have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants).

Because Plaintiff delayed the action though his failure to obey the Court’s order denying his 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, the third factor also supports dismissal. Further, the 

Court warned that “[f]ailure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action” (Doc. 

3 at 1, emphasis omitted), and the Court need only warn a party once that the matter could be 

dismissed to satisfy the requirement of considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262.

Thus, the Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee 

as ordered. Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that 

although “the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits . . . weighs against 

dismissal, it is not sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”).

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2025 

Case 1:24-cv-01249-JLT-EPG Document 5 Filed 01/08/25 Page 2 of 2