Coffer v. Mannix

Coffer · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · July 25, 2025 · No. 1:25-cv-00529-SAB

Summary

The court recommends dismissing Jonathan Christopher Coffer’s civil rights action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to prosecute. The recommendation also directs the clerk to randomly assign a district judge and advises that objections may be filed within fourteen days.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Writing for the Court
Stanley A. Boone
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decision date
July 25, 2025
Docket number
1:25-cv-00529-SAB
Procedural posture
A pro se plaintiff brought a civil-rights action, and a magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or seek in forma pauperis status, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to prosecute.
Precedential value
unpublished and nonprecedential findings and recommendations
Parties
Jonathan Christopher Coffer v. Jennifer Mannix
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

sanctionscivil proceduresection 1983civil rights

Practice areas

civil procedureprisoner civil rightssanctions

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
  2. Whether dismissal is warranted for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute under the court's inherent authority and Local Rule 110.
  3. Whether the applicable dismissal factors, including the availability of less drastic sanctions, support dismissal.

Holdings

  1. A federal court may dismiss an action when a party fails to prosecute, obey a court order, or comply with local rules, including through the court's inherent docket-management power and Local Rule 110.
  2. Dismissal without prejudice is warranted where the public interest in expeditious resolution, the court's need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice, and the lack of an effective lesser sanction outweigh the policy favoring disposition on the merits.

Key quotations

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. (at 1)
Finally, a court’s warning to a party that their failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. (at 3)

Factual background

Plaintiff filed a pro se civil-rights action but did not submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the required $405 filing fee. The court issued orders on May 9 and June 30, 2025, requiring compliance and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal. Plaintiff did not comply with either order or otherwise prosecute the action.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed the action on May 6, 2025. The court ordered him to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $405 filing fee, but he did neither. After the court issued an order to show cause and warned that noncompliance would result in a dismissal recommendation, Plaintiff still did not respond. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice and directed the clerk to randomly assign the matter to a district judge; objections were due within fourteen days.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…