1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVERETT LEROY SPILLARD, II, No. 2:25-cv-01330 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and 14 ANNA RIVERA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is incarcerated in state prison and proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 18 under

. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on May 9, 2025 (ECF 19 No. 1) but did not pay the filing fee or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On July 11, 20 2025, the undersigned issued an order to show cause why plaintiff’s failure to pay the required 21 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis should not result in a recommendation that 22 this case be dismissed. (ECF No. 5.) In response, plaintiff filed a notice stating that his brother 23 paid the filing fee for this case, but it went to a different action. (ECF No. 6.) The court 24 investigated plaintiff’s claim by reviewing the docket as to each of his cases in this district and 25 communicating with the court’s finance department. That investigation found no record of a 26 payment from his brother in this or any other action pending in the district. 27 Nevertheless, on August 8, 2025, the undersigned granted plaintiff an additional thirty 28 days to provide proof of payment of the filing fee or a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 1 | More than thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not responded to that order. Accordingly, the 2 || undersigned recommends that the action be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fees and failure 3 || to comply with a court order. See Olivares v. Marshall,

, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) 4 | (affirming dismissal for failure to pay partial filing fee under IFP statute); Local Rule 110 (failure 5 || to comply with court orders). 6 In recommending this action be dismissed, the court has considered “(1) the public’s 7 || interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 8 | risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 9 || merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 10 | 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). The court finds dismissal appropriate here where the 11 | undersigned granted plaintiff multiple extensions of time to show proof of payment of the filing 12 || fees or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis and warned plaintiff that his failure to do so 13 | will result in the recommendation that the action be dismissed. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 15 | assign a District Judge to this matter. 16 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed without 17 || prejudice for failure to pay the filing fees and for failure to comply with a court order. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 20 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 21 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 22 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 23 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

24 | (9th Cir. 1991). 25 || DATED: October 6, 2025 md 27 SEAN C. RIORDAN 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE