Opinion
2:22-cv-00264-APG-NJK
04-20-2022
RONALD J. ALLISON, Plaintiff(s), v. DISTRICT COURTS, Defendant(s).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Nancy J. Kopp, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff initiated this case without paying the required fee or filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. On March 10, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis by April 7, 2022. Docket No. 3. The Court warned that “[f]ailure to comply will result in a recommendation to the District Judge that this case be dismissed.” Id. at 2. Notwithstanding that warning, Plaintiff did not comply.
This case cannot proceed without Plaintiff either paying the filing fee or filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Having refused to do either in this case, Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal. E.g., Desai v. Biden, 2021 WL 38169, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2021), adopted, 2021 WL 276236 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2021).
Moreover, Plaintiff's refusal to comply with the Court's order is an abusive litigation practice that has interfered with the Court's ability to hear this case, delayed litigation, disrupted the Court's timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened the integrity of the Court's orders and the orderly administration ofjustice. Sanctions less drastic than dismissal are unavailable because Plaintiff has refused to comply with the order of this Court notwithstanding the warning that case-dispositive sanctions may be imposed.
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.
NOTICE
This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).