1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ALANA DUNN, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0963 JLT EPG
)
12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION
) WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S
13 v. ) FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE
)
14 IRS, et al., )
)
15 Defendants. )
)
16 )
17 The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee after finding she was not entitled to proceed in
18 forma pauperis in this matter. (Doc. 8.) The Court denied reconsideration and ordered Plaintiff to pay
19 the filing fee no later than September 25, 2025.1 (Doc. 10 at 4.) The Court warned Plaintiff that failure
20 to pay the required filing fee as ordered would result in dismissal of this action. (Doc. 10 at 4; Doc. 8
21 at 2.) The deadline expired, and Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee. Without such payment, the action
22 cannot proceed before the Court. See Saddozai v. Davis, 35 F.4th 705, 709 (9th Cir. 2022).
23 In finding dismissal is appropriate, the Court has considered the factors outlined by the Ninth
24 Circuit for terminating sanctions, including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of
25 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the
26 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
27
28 1 At that time, the Court indicated further motions would not be entertained pending payment of the filing fee. (Doc. 10 at
1 || sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). The public’s interest in
2 || expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor
3 || of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest
4 ||1n expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
5 |] 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (district courts have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being
6 || subject to noncompliant litigants). Because Plaintiff delayed the action though her failure to obey the
7 || Court’s order to pay the filing fee, the third factor also supports dismissal. Finally, the Court’s
8 || warnings to Plaintiff that the matter would be dismissed if she failed to pay the filing fee satisfies the
9 || requirement of considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Consequently, the
10 || Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal for Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee as ordered.
11 || Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that although “the
12 || public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits ... weighs against dismissal, it is not
13 || sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”). Thus, the Court ORDERS:
14 1. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
15 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion and close this case.
16
17 || IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 |! Dated: _ September 29, 2025 Cerin | Tower
19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.