Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01132/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01132-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Filberto Chavez
Plaintiff
U.S. Probation Officer
Defendant

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FILBERTO CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. PROBATION OFFICER,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01132-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

COURT ORDER, FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE TO PAY 

FILING FEE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A 

DISTRICT JUDGE

(ECF Nos. 4, 5)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

Filberto Chavez (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action on September 23, 2024. 

(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on a form from the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Indiana. (ECF No. 2.) Upon review of incorrect application, the Court 

also found it incomplete as it is not supported by a certified copy of Plaintiff’s trust account 

statement. On September 24, 2024, the Court issued an order advising Plaintiff that his motion is 

on the incorrect form and does not contain the necessary information and documentation for the 

Court to evaluate Plaintiff’s request. (ECF No. 4.) The Court provided Plaintiff with the correct

Case 1:24-cv-01132-JLT-SAB Document 7 Filed 12/05/24 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

form and ordered that Plaintiff submit a completed application within forty-five (45) days of 

service of the order. (Id.) Because Plaintiff had not filed an application nor paid the filing fee by 

the deadline to do so, the Court issued an order on November 14, 2024 requiring that Plaintiff 

show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply 

with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Fourteen days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed 

a response to the Court’s order to show cause, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, or paid the 

filing fee. 

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 

control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 

including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 

2000); Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010). 

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 

United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 

with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack 

of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a pretrial order, 

the Court must weigh “(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.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 

(9th Cir. 2006); Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:24-cv-01132-JLT-SAB Document 7 Filed 12/05/24 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

1986). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be 

met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability 

Litigation, 460 F.3d at 1226.

In this instance the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation and the 

Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. Plaintiff has not filed a

correct and complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee, nor otherwise 

responded to either of the Court’s orders. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the orders of the 

Court hinders the Court’s ability to move this action towards disposition, and indicates that 

Plaintiff does not intend to diligently litigate this action.

Since it appears that Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently there arises a 

rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendant in this action. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 

1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). The risk of prejudice to the defendant also weighs in favor of dismissal. 

The public policy in favor of deciding cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors 

in favor of dismissal. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to move this action forward. This action can 

proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the 

action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. In this instance, the 

fourth factor does not outweigh Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

Finally, a court’s warning to a party that their failure to obey the court’s order will result 

in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s September 24, 2024 order 

expressly stated: “Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action.” (ECF 

No. 4.) Additionally, the Court’s November 14, 2024 order expressly stated: “Plaintiff’s failure 

to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss the action....” (ECF No. 5.) 

Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warnings that dismissal of this action would result from 

noncompliance with the Court’s orders. Further, Plaintiff may still file an application to proceed 

in forma pauperis during the objection period and the Court will consider the application. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:24-cv-01132-JLT-SAB Document 7 Filed 12/05/24 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without 

prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis that contains the necessary information and documentation, failure to abide by the 

Court’s order, and failure to prosecute. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 

(14) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to these

findings and recommendations with the Court limited to 15 pages in length, including any 

exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th 

Cir. 1991)).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly 

assign this matter to a District Judge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2024 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-01132-JLT-SAB Document 7 Filed 12/05/24 Page 4 of 4