Milam

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARTIN LEE FOSTER, Case No. 2:24-cv-2307-JDP (P) Plaintiff, v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

MILAM,

Defendant. 16 On October 9, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to submit either a completed in forma pauperis application or pay the required filing fee within thirty days. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff failed to comply with that order, therefore, on November 15, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to pay the filing fee, to prosecute, and to comply with court orders. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause, and the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted. The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel…