Louie Aguilar, Jr. v. Imperial County Board of Supervisors, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee or file a supported in forma pauperis motion after being granted an extension of time. The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders“The Court DISMISSES without prejudice this action.” | agree with court The court applied the five-factor test from Pagtalunan v. Galaza to determine if dismissal under Rule 41(b) was appropriate. The plaintiff was given multiple opportunities and extensions to pay the fee or file a valid IFP motion but failed to do so for over seven months. The court correctly identified that monetary sanctions are ineffective for a pro se detainee seeking IFP status and that the public interest in docket management outweighs the policy favoring merits disposition in this context of prolonged non-compliance. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the established Ninth Circuit framework for dismissal under Rule 41(b). It explicitly weighs the five Pagtalunan factors, providing specific reasoning for why the first, second, and fourth factors favor dismissal while acknowledging the fifth factor weighs against it but is outweighed. The reliance on district court precedent regarding the ineffectiveness of monetary sanctions for IFP applicants is appropriate in this context. The record recited is sufficient to support the finding of non-compliance.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LOUIE AGUILAR, JR., Case No.: 3:25-cv-0538-RBM-DDL 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 12 vs. 13 14 IMPERIAL COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 Louie Aguilar, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a detainee proceeding pro se with a civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 21, 2025, this Court denied Plaintiff’s request 20 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed the case without prejudice. (Doc. 9.) 21 The Court informed Plaintiff that, to have his case reopened, he must either pay the $405 22 filing fee or submit a properly supported IFP motion by July 2, 2025. (Id. at 4.) On June 23 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time “to arrange the fee.” (Doc. 16.) 24 The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time and ordered that “Plaintiff 25 must satisfy the filing fee requirement by paying the filing fee or filing a fully supported 26 IFP motion on or before August 22, 2025.” (Doc. 17 at 1–2.) As of March 27, 2026, 27 Plaintiff has done neither of those things. 28 1 A district court may dismiss a plaintiff's action for his failure to prosecute or his 2 || failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 3 || F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). 4 || Before dismissing the action under Rule 41(b), courts must consider: 5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 6 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits. 8 || Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. 9 These factors favor dismissal. As to the first two factors, over seven months have 10 || passed since the Court notified Plaintiff of, and directed Plaintiff to cure, the defects in his 11 |I case. (See also Doc. 14 (June 11, 2025 Order reminding Plaintiff that he “has yet to comply 12 || with the Court’s May 21, 2025 Order that he either pay the filing fee or submit a properly 13 || supported IFP motion”). As to the fourth factor, because Plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, 14 || “the imposition of monetary sanctions would be ‘inappropriate and likely ineffective’ and 15 || ‘would not remedy Plaintiff’s lack of participation.’” Lewis v. Donovan, Case No. 21-cv- 16 || 1266-BAS-KSC, 2021 WL 6051571, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2021) (quoting Johnson v. 17 || Pamplin, No. 17-CV-00560-BAS-BLM, 2019 WL 494630, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2019)). 18 || The third factor is neutral at this early stage of the litigation. The fifth factor weighs against 19 || dismissal, but is outweighed by the first, second, and fourth factors, which heavily favor 20 || dismissal. 21 Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss this action for Plaintiffs failure 22 || to comply with the Court’s orders. The Court DISMISSES without prejudice this action. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: March 27, 2026 rt Barruds, Mptaige > HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 ANE .. NEVO DDAT WANT