1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 THOMAS JOSEPH MELGER, No. 2:25-cv-02566 SCR P 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 15 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff is incarcerated in state prison and proceeding pro se with a civil rights action 20 under

. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee for this action or sought leave to 21 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). In an order dated October 6, 2025, the undersigned explained 22 that although plaintiff did not request to proceed IFP, as a three-strikes litigant he was “precluded 23 from proceeding without payment of the filing fee unless he is ‘under imminent danger of serious 24 physical injury.’” ECF No. 5 at 1 (citing

(g)). Because the complaint’s 25 allegations that prison officials entered plaintiff’s person via electromagnetic forces were 26 fantastical on their face, the undersigned concluded plaintiff had not put forth a plausible showing 27 of imminent harm and ordered him to pay the filing fees within thirty (30) days.

. 28 More than 30 days have passed, and plaintiff has not paid the filing fees or otherwise 1 responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the action be 2 dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with a court order. See 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1914(a); Local Rule 110. 4 A party to a civil action who is not proceeding IFP must pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1914(a). A court may dismiss an action when a party fails to pay that fee. See Olivares v. 6 Marshall,

, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding district court’s authority to dismiss a 7 complaint without prejudice for failure to pay filing fee). Plaintiff’s failure to pay the fee in this 8 case merits dismissal without prejudice. 9 So too does plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order dated October 6, 2025. 10 When deciding whether to recommend dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, the 11 court must consider “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 12 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 13 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” 14 Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). “The public’s 15 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. 16 Amplifier,

, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The court’s need to manage its docket also weighs 17 in favor of dismissal, particularly given the heavy caseload in this District. The third factor is 18 neutral given that plaintiff’s complaint was screened out and defendant was not served, but 19 “[u]nnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and 20 evidence will become stale.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002). The 21 fourth factor weighs against dismissal, but less so if plaintiff is not precluded from litigating this 22 matter. The court has considered less drastic alternatives and concludes that dismissal without 23 prejudice is appropriate. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a 25 district judge to this matter. 26 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed without 27 prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with a court order. 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 twenty-one days 2 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 3 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 4 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 5 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

6 || (9th Cir. 1991). 7 || DATED: December 1, 2025

9 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28