The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 LOUIE AGUILAR, JR., Case No.: 3:25-cv-0538-RBM-DDL
11 Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
12 vs.
13
14 IMPERIAL COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, et al.,
15
16 Defendants.
17
18 Louie Aguilar, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a detainee proceeding pro se with a civil rights
19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 21, 2025, this Court denied Plaintiff’s request
20 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed the case without prejudice. (Doc. 9.)
21 The Court informed Plaintiff that, to have his case reopened, he must either pay the $405
22 filing fee or submit a properly supported IFP motion by July 2, 2025. (Id. at 4.) On June
23 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time “to arrange the fee.” (Doc. 16.)
24 The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time and ordered that “Plaintiff
25 must satisfy the filing fee requirement by paying the filing fee or filing a fully supported
26 IFP motion on or before August 22, 2025.” (Doc. 17 at 1–2.) As of March 27, 2026,
27 Plaintiff has done neither of those things.
28
1 A district court may dismiss a plaintiff's action for his failure to prosecute or his
2 || failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291
3 || F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992).
4 || Before dismissing the action under Rule 41(b), courts must consider:
5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s
6 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants; (4) the
availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring
7 disposition of cases on their merits.
8 || Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642.
9 These factors favor dismissal. As to the first two factors, over seven months have
10 || passed since the Court notified Plaintiff of, and directed Plaintiff to cure, the defects in his
11 |I case. (See also Doc. 14 (June 11, 2025 Order reminding Plaintiff that he “has yet to comply
12 || with the Court’s May 21, 2025 Order that he either pay the filing fee or submit a properly
13 || supported IFP motion”). As to the fourth factor, because Plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP,
14 || “the imposition of monetary sanctions would be ‘inappropriate and likely ineffective’ and
15 || ‘would not remedy Plaintiff’s lack of participation.’” Lewis v. Donovan, Case No. 21-cv-
16 || 1266-BAS-KSC, 2021 WL 6051571, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2021) (quoting Johnson v.
17 || Pamplin, No. 17-CV-00560-BAS-BLM, 2019 WL 494630, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2019)).
18 || The third factor is neutral at this early stage of the litigation. The fifth factor weighs against
19 || dismissal, but is outweighed by the first, second, and fourth factors, which heavily favor
20 || dismissal.
21 Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss this action for Plaintiffs failure
22 || to comply with the Court’s orders. The Court DISMISSES without prejudice this action.
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24 || Dated: March 27, 2026
rt Barruds, Mptaige >
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
ANE .. NEVO DDAT WANT