Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00140/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00140-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Danelle Renee Scoggin
Plaintiff
Turning Point Central California
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

DANELLE RENEE SCOGGIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

TURNING POINT CENTRAL 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00140-DAD-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 4)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE 

Plaintiff Danelle Scoggin (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se in this action, filed the complaint 

in this action on January 28, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in this action 

and instead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

However, Plaintiff’s application was not adequately completed. In response to question three, 

Plaintiff indicates she receives disability and child support payments but does not describe the 

amounts received and what she expects to continue to receive. (ECF No. 2 at 1.) On January 31, 

2020, an order issued requiring Plaintiff to file a long form application to proceed in forma 

pauperis or pay the filing fee within twenty days. (ECF No. 4.) More than twenty days have 

passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the January 31, 2020 order. 

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 

Case 1:20-cv-00140-DAD-SAB Document 6 Filed 03/02/20 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

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).

Here, Plaintiff was ordered to either pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis within twenty days of January 31, 2020. More than twenty days have passed and 

Plaintiff did not comply with or otherwise respond to the January 31, 2020 order. The January 

31, 2020 order informed plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal 

of this action. (ECF No. 4 at 2.)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for 

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

compliance with the January 31, 2019 order. 

This findings and recommendations is 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 thirty (30) 

days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to this findings and 

recommendations with the court. 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 SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00140-DAD-SAB Document 6 Filed 03/02/20 Page 2 of 2