1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DARRELL EUGENE JOHNSON, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0921 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 13 v. ) PAY THE FILING FEE ) 14 CALIF. CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE ) (Doc. 17) SERVICES, et al., ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 )

17 On November 14, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within thirty days of 18 service of the order after concluding that he was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this 19 matter. (Doc. 17.) The Court warned Plaintiff that, if he failed to pay the filing fee as ordered, this 20 would result in dismissal of this action. (Id. at 2.) However, Plaintiff has failed to timely pay the filing 21 fee. 22 Without payment, the action cannot proceed. See Saddozai v. Davis, 35 F.4th 705, 709 (9th 23 Cir. 2022). Dismissal of this action is therefore appropriate. In reaching this conclusion, the Court has 24 considered the factors outlined by the Ninth Circuit for terminating sanctions, including: “(1) the 25 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) 26 the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 27 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 28 (9th Cir. 1986). The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest 1 managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 2 || (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal” 3 || Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (district courts have inherent interest in 4 || managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). Because Plaintiff delayed th 5 || action though his failure to obey the Court’s order to pay the filing fee, the third factor also supports 6 || dismissal. Finally, the Court’s warning to Plaintiff that the matter could be dismissed satisfies the 7 || requirement of considering alternative sanctions. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Consequently, the 8 || Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal for Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee as ordered. 9 || Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that although “the 10 || public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits ... weighs against dismissal, it is not 11 || sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 13 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 14 15 □□ IS SO ORDERED. 16 |! Dated: December 26, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wun 17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28