Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01227/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01227-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Vincent Ysarraras Ramirez
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT YSARRARAS RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01227-LJO-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR

PAY FILING FEE

(ECF No. 3)

TEN DAY DEADLINE

I.

BACKGROUND

On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff Vincent Ysarraras Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) proceeding pro se 

in this action, filed a complaint challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security denying him disability benefits. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis in this action without prepayment of fees stating that he was indigent. (ECF No. 

2.) On August 14, 2015, an order issued requiring Plaintiff to either file an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within twenty days. 

II.

DISCUSSION

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, 

Case 1:15-cv-01227-LJO-SAB Document 6 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 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

2

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

2000). 

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). 

Plaintiff was ordered to Plaintiff to either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis

or pay the filing fee within twenty days of the August 14, 2015 order. In the order, Plaintiff was 

advised that failure to comply with the order would result in this action being dismissed. (ECF 

No. 3.) More than twenty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed the application to proceed 

in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee in this action, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order requiring him to pay the filing fee or demonstrate 

that he is eligible to proceed without prepayment of the fee. For this reason, the Court 

recommends that this action be dismissed.

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 

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

pauperis in compliance with the Court’s order. 

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 ten (10) 

days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings 

and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 

Case 1:15-cv-01227-LJO-SAB Document 6 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 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

3

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). The parties are 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: September 14, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01227-LJO-SAB Document 6 Filed 09/14/15 Page 3 of 3