(PS) Esquivel Torres v. IRS Federal

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JESSICA M. ESQUIVEL TORRES,
Plaintiff,
v.
IRS FEDERAL,
Defendant.
No. 2:25-CV-02201-DJC-DMC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the
Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2.
The application Plaintiff filed is incomplete. On September 15, 2025, the court
directed plaintiff to submit either a completed application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
or the full filing fee for this action within 30 days. See ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was warned that
failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to
comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. To date, plaintiff has failed to comply.
The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal.
See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal
Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of
prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;
Case 2:25-cv-02201-DJC-DMC Document 4 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate
sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone,
833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where
there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.
1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with an
order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.
1992).
Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to resolve the fee
status for this case as directed, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed,
without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders.
Accordingly, the undersigned additionally recommends Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis be denied as moot.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: November 12, 2025
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02201-DJC-DMC Document 4 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 2