Case No. 1:16-cv-01417-JLT (PC).

JEFF WALKER, Plaintiff, v. WECHSLER, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jeff Walker, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Domiano, Defendant, represented by Vickie Pochelle Whitney , Attorney General's Office for the State of California.


(Docs. 26, 27, 33)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

On June 12, 2017, the Court ruled on Defendant's motion to dismiss, revoked Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status, and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full within 21 days. (Doc. 33.) A month has now passed and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, "[f]ailure of counsel, or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." Local Rule 110. "District courts have inherent power to control their dockets," and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the filing fee or a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Plaintiff is not eligible for the latter and was ordered to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 33.) Based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order to pay the filing fee, dismissal of this action is appropriate. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006); Local Rule 110.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice because of Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court's June 12, 2017 order and to pay the filing fee.



1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases