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

11 LATHWAHN MCELROY, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0759 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 13 v. ) PAY THE FILING FEE ) 14 GRIGGS, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

17 On August 18, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee after finding he was not 18 entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. (Doc. 12.) The Court warned Plaintiff that if he 19 failed to pay the filing fee as ordered, this would result in dismissal of this action. (Id. at 3.) 20 Thereafter, the assigned magistrate judge granted Plaintiff an extension to October 15, 2025, to pay the 21 filing fee, noting that no further extensions would be given and advising him that this lawsuit would be 22 dismissed without prejudice if the Court did not receive the filing fee by the October 15, 2025, 23 deadline. (Doc. 14.) 24 On October 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second motion for extension of time to pay the filing fee, 25 generally citing his lack of funds, disabilities, and inability to access legal research resources and 26 speedy communication devices. (Doc. 15.) This request for an extension is DENIED. Petitioner was 27 ordered to pay the filing fee approximately three months ago. His motion does not justify an additional 28 extension. 1 Without payment, the action cannot proceed. See Saddozai v. Davis,

(9th 2 || Cir. 2022). Dismissal of this action is therefore appropriate. In reaching this conclusion, the Court ha: 3 || considered the factors outlined by the Ninth Circuit for terminating sanctions, including: “(1) the 4 || public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) 5 || the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 6 || merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1423 7 || (9th Cir. 1986). The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest 8 ||1n managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 990 9 || (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal” 10 || Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (district courts have inherent interest in 11 || managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). Because Plaintiff delayed th 12 || action though his failure to obey the Court’s order to pay the filing fee, the third factor also supports 13 || dismissal. Finally, the Court’s warning to Plaintiff that the matter could be dismissed satisfies the 14 || requirement of considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik,

. Consequently, the 15 || Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal for Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee as ordered. 16 || Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

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