Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, Eastern District of California

December 16, 2014

BRENDA DARLENE WILSON, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

On September 4, 2014, Plaintiff Leigh Ann Grant ("Plaintiff) filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment of the filing fee. (ECF No. 2.) The Court denied Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice on September 8, 2014, because the application provided by Plaintiff did not contain sufficient information for the Court to determine if she was entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees. (ECF No. 6.) At the direction of the Court, on September 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a long form application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7.) After review of the long form application the Court determined that Plaintiff had not made a showing that she was entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees and she was ordered to pay the filing fee within thirty days. (ECF No. 8.)

On November 5, 2014, rather than submit the filing fee, Plaintiff submitted a third application to proceed in forma pauperis which the Court construed as a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 9.) An order issued denying the application on November 7, 2014, and Plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee within thirty days. (ECF No. 10.) More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to the Court's order.

Local Rule 110 provides that "[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiffs failure comply with the September 29, 2014 and November 7, 2014 orders.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 304. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, F.3d, , No. 11- 17911, 2014 WL 6435497, at *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.