1 2 3 4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CANDACE SMITH, Case No. 1:25-cv-00329-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 FRESNO STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., (Doc. 3) 15 Defendant. FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

16 17 18 I. Background 19 Plaintiff Candace Smith (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 20 this civil action on March 18, 2025. (Docs. 1, 2.) On March 21, 2025, the Court granted 21 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and noted that the Court would screen Plaintiff’s 22 complaint in due course. The Court’s order was returned as undeliverable on March 31, 2025. 23 II. Discussion 24 Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of her current address at all times. Local 25 Rule 183(b) provides:

26 Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and 27 opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and 28 if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within thirty (30) days 1 thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal of an action for failure to 3 prosecute.1 4 Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than April 30, 2025. Plaintiff has failed to file 5 a change of address or otherwise update the Court. 6 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 7 required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 8 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 9 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 10 sanctions.” Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and 11 citation omitted); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation,

, 12 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions 13 that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA,

(citation 14 omitted). 15 Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Court’s orders, the expeditious resolution of 16 litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal.

. The 17 third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, as a presumption 18 of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. 19 Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal 20 because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 21 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to 22 move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 23 direction,” which is the case here. In re PPA,

(citation omitted). More 24 importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other 25 reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and her 26 27 1 Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 28 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U. S. Forest Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 1 failure to apprise the Court of her current address.

at 1228–29; Carey,

. The 2 Court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to 3 prosecute this action. 4 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 5 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based on 6 Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 183(b). 7 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 8 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title

(b)(1). Within 9 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 10 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 11 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 12 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 13 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 14 limit may not be considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 15 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 16 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 17 v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19

20 Dated: May 7, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28