Demetrius Jerome Moore; Lacole Regina Moore v. Experian Information Solutions Inc.; Trans Union L.L.C.; Equifax Information Services L.L.C.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the failure of pro se plaintiffs to pay the filing fee or file complete in forma pauperis applications after a prior denial of an IFP motion and a specific deadline. The court ordered the case dismissed without prejudice and directed the Clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action without prejudice“Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court had previously denied the initial IFP motion without prejudice and set a specific deadline for plaintiffs to either pay the fee or file complete IFP applications. The order recites that the deadline passed and plaintiffs failed to comply. Dismissal for failure to comply with a court order is a standard exercise of inherent authority and is supported by the cited local rule and case law. The dismissal is without prejudice, preserving the plaintiffs' right to refile if they cure the deficiency. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It clearly states the procedural history (denial of IFP, setting of deadline, failure to comply) and cites the specific local rule and Ninth Circuit authority supporting the court's power to dismiss for non-compliance with an order. The result follows directly from the facts recited.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 25-cv-03529-DMS-SBC DEMETRIUS JEROME MOORE;
12 LACOLE REGINA MOORE, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 Plaintiffs, v. 14 EXPERIAN INFORMATION 15 SOLUTIONS INC.; TRANS UNION 16 L.L.C.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES L.L.C., 17 Defendants. 18 19 On December 11, 2025, Pro Se Plaintiffs Demetrius Jerome Moore and Lacole 20 Regina Moore filed a Complaint against Defendants Experian Information Solutions Inc., 21 Trans Union L.L.C., and Equifax Information Services L.L.C. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs did 22 not pay the filing fee. (Id.) Plaintiff Lacole Regina Moore filed a motion for leave to 23 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Mot., ECF No. 2.) 24 On February 24, 2026, the Court denied the motion to proceed IFP without prejudice. 25 (ECF No. 3.) The Court ordered Plaintiffs to, on or before March 17, 2026, either (1) pay 26 the filing fee or (2) each file a motion to proceed IFP. (Id. at 2.) The Court cautioned 27 Plaintiffs that failure to pay the filing fee or submit complete IFP applications by the 28 1 |} deadline will result in dismissal of this action. (/d.) The deadline has passed, and Plaintiffs 2 || have not paid the filing fee or filed complete IFP applications. 3 A district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with the district’s Local 4 Rules or a court order. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 5 (9th Cir. 2005) (providing “courts may dismiss under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 6 ||41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances”); S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.1(a) 7 || (providing failure “to comply with these rules .. . or with any order of the Court may be 8 || grounds for imposition by the Court of... sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within 9 || the inherent power of the Court, including, without limitation, dismissal of any actions”’). 10 || Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is 11 || directed to close the case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: April 1, 2026 2» 2mm Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28