1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL RENE RUIZ, Case No. 2:24-cv-2757-DC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 R. ST. ANDRE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 23, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to submit either a completed in forma pauperis 18 application or pay the required filing fee within thirty days. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff failed to 19 comply with that order, therefore, on December 19, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to show cause why 20 this action should not be dismissed for his failure to pay the filing fee, to prosecute, and to 21 comply with court orders. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause, and 22 the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted. 23 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 24 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 25

, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 26 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 27 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). 28 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 1 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran,

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

, 3 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended 4 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 5 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 6 U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 7 order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 8 prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 9 In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders, I 10 have considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 11 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 12 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” 13 Ferdik,

(citation omitted). 14 Here, plaintiff has failed to respond to court orders directing him to file either a completed 15 in forma pauperis application or pay the required filing fee. See ECF Nos. 3 & 6. Therefore, the 16 public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and 17 the risk of prejudice to the defendant all support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. Lastly, 18 my warning to plaintiff that failure to obey court orders will result in dismissal satisfies the 19 “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone, 833 at 132- 20 33; Henderson,

. The December 19, 2024 order expressly warned plaintiff that 21 his failure to comply with court orders would result in dismissal. See ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has 22 had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance. Accordingly, I find 23 that the balance of factors weighs in favor of dismissal. 24 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 25 1. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, to 26 prosecute, and to comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the October 23, 2024 order. 27 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 28 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 1 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 2 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 3 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 4 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 5 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 6 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 7 | Turner vy. Duncan,

, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 8 | 1991). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. ll ( ie — Dated: _ January 24, 2025 q-—— 12 JEREMY D. PETERSON B UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28