(PC) Ruiz v. St. Andre

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL RENE RUIZ, Case No. 2:24-cv-2757-DC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 R. ST. ANDRE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 23, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to submit either a completed in forma pauperis 18 application or pay the required filing fee within thirty days. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff failed to 19 comply with that order, therefore, on December 19, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to show cause why 20 this action should not be dismissed for his failure to pay the filing fee, to prosecute, and to 21 comply with court orders. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause, and 22 the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted. 23 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 24 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 25 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure…