1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ALANA DUNN, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0962 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. ) FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE ) 14 UNIFIED DISTRICT SCHOOL CLOVIS, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

17 The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee after finding she was not entitled to proceed in 18 forma pauperis in this matter. (Doc. 5.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s requests for reconsideration and 19 ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee no later than September 25, 2025. (Doc. 11 at 3; see also Doc. 9.) 20 The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered would result in 21 dismissal of this action. (Doc. 11 at 3; Doc. 5 at 2.) The deadline expired, and Plaintiff did not pay the 22 filing fee. Without such payment, the action cannot proceed before the Court. See Saddozai v. Davis, 35

, 709 (9th Cir. 2022). 24 In finding dismissal is appropriate, the Court has considered the factors outlined by the Ninth 25 Circuit for terminating sanctions, including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 26 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the 27 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 28 sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). The public’s interest in 1 || expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor 2 || of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest 3 || in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 4 |) 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (district courts have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being 5 || subject to noncompliant litigants). Because Plaintiff delayed the action though her failure to obey the 6 || Court’s order to pay the filing fee, the third factor also supports dismissal. Finally, the Court’s 7 || warnings to Plaintiff that the matter would be dismissed if she failed to pay the filing fee satisfies the 8 || requirement of considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik,

. Consequently, the 9 || Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal for Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee as ordered. 10 || Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that although “the 11 || public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits ... weighs against dismissal, it is not 12 || sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 14 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: _ September 29, 2025 ( Li pA L. wan 18 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28