1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ARTICE JACKSON, No. 2:24-cv-1122-TLN-SCR 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 W. GREGORY KLEIN, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Artice Jackson is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the 17 undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and

(b)(1). On April 15, 18 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1 19 and 2. On September 17, 2024, this Court screened the complaint per the screening process 20 required by the IFP statute and concluded the complaint failed to allege facts establishing federal 21 jurisdiction and failed to state a claim. ECF No. 4. The Court’s order allowed Plaintiff 30 days 22 to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies and stated the amended complaint “must 23 include a sufficient jurisdictional statement and comply with Rule 8.” ECF No. 4 at 5. The Order 24 warned that noncompliance may result in a recommendation of dismissal.

Plaintiff did not 25 file an amended complaint. 26 On October 29, 2024, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to 27 show cause, in writing, within 14 days why the failure to file an amended complaint should not 28 result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. ECF No. 5. The Order warned that if 1 || Plaintiff failed to respond, the Court would recommend dismissal of the action. /d. at 2. More 2 || than 14 days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a response. 3 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has 4 || considered “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to 5 || manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 6 || disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. 7 || Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). “The public’s interest in 8 | expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

|| 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court’s need to manage its docket also weighs in favor of 10 | dismissal, particularly given the heavy caseload in this District. The third factor is neutral given 11 | that Defendants have not yet appeared, but “[uJnnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that 12 || witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

| 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). The fourth factor weighs against dismissal. The Court has considered 14 || less drastic alternatives and concludes that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. 15 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 16 || prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 17 | Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 | assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 20 || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 21 || objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 22 || Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 23 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 24 || Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 25 || DATED: December 11, 2024 mk 27 SEAN C. RIORDAN 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE