(PS) Alfaro v. Bank of America, No. 2:2010cv00891 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/16/10, RECOMMENDING that this case be dismissed without prejudice; and the Clerk be directed to close this case and vacate any pending motions. Within 14 days after being served with these f&r's, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Case referred to Judge Mendez.(Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF

(PS) Alfaro v. Bank of America Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MIKA ALFARO, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:10-cv-00891 JAM KJN PS vs. BANK OF AMERICA, INC. 14 Defendant. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel. In an order issued on April 20, 2010, this 17 court denied plaintiff’s application for in forma pauperis status because plaintiff did not meet the 18 indigency requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Dkt. No. 3.) Hence, plaintiff was obligated to 19 pay the $350 filing fee to commence a civil action in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 20 The court provided plaintiff with twenty days from the date of that order to pay the filing fee. 21 (Dkt. No. 3.) If plaintiff did not pay the filing fee, she was advised that the undersigned would 22 recommend dismissal of her action. (Id.) 23 Plaintiff paid her $350 filing fee on May 5, 2010 via a check. (Court Receipt No. 24 CAE200025974.) However, the undersigned learned on June 3, 2010 that plaintiff’s check was 25 returned to the court unpaid by plaintiff’s financial institution. 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 As the Clerk of Court advised plaintiff via a letter dated June 3, 2010, plaintiff 2 was now also responsible for an additional fee of $45 for a check paid into the court which was 3 returned for lack of funds. (Dkt. No. 8 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1914).) This court subsequently 4 issued an order advising plaintiff that she was to remit the $395.00 filing and returned check fee 5 to the Clerk of Court, by June 14, 2010, in accordance with the terms of the Clerk’s June 3 letter 6 or her action may be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff did not make any payment to the court on 7 or before June 14, 2010. 8 9 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed for failure to pay the requisite filing fee and failure to comply with the court’s orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 41(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1914 et seq.; Local Rule 121; Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. 11 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that courts may dismiss an action 12 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 13 or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 14 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground 15 for dismissal.”); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow 16 the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). 17 For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 18 1. This case be dismissed without prejudice; and 19 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case and vacate any pending 20 21 dates. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 22 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 23 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 24 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a 25 document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 26 Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on 2 1 all parties within fourteen days after service of the objections. Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file 2 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 3 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 4 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 DATED: June 16, 2010 6 7 8 9 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.