1

2

3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CANDACE SMITH, Case No. 1:25-cv-00419-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 14 RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE WALMART, et al., DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR

15 FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO Defendants. COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY 17 (30) DAYS 18

19 20 On April 10, 2025, Plaintiff Candace Smith, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s complaint is hard to follow, but generally, she appears to accuse 21 Defendant Walmart and other business entity Defendants of using security cameras to engage in 22 “gang stalking, attacking, robbing, and making false accusations and earnings from [Plaintiff’s] 23 legacy.” (Id. at 5) (minor alterations for readability). 24 Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) with her complaint. (ECF 25 No. 2). However, because she failed to answer some of the questions on the IFP form, previously 26 assigned United States Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto, issued an order on April 15, 2025, 27 requiring Plaintiff to complete and file a long form IFP application within 21 days. (ECF No. 3). 28 1 After Plaintiff failed to meet this deadline, the undersigned issued an order granting 2 Plaintiff a sua sponte extension to May 28, 2025, to file the long form IFP application, warning 3 “that failure to timely do so will likely result in the dismissal of this case.” (ECF No. 5). 4 However, to date, Plaintiff has filed nothing. Accordingly, the Court will recommend dismissal 5 based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case and comply with court orders. In determining whether to dismiss a[n] [action] for failure to prosecute or failure to 6 comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the 7 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the 8 availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. 9 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992)). 11 “‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.’” 12

(quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier,

, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). Therefore, the 13 first factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 14 As to the Court’s need to manage its docket, “[t]he trial judge is in the best position to 15 determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with docket management and the 16 public interest. . . . It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to 17 routine noncompliance of litigants. . . .” Id. (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff has failed to 18 respond to two separate orders to file a completed long form IFP application. (ECF Nos. 3, 5). 19 Moreover, Plaintiff has filed nothing since she initiated this case on April 10, 2025. This failure to 20 respond is delaying the case and interfering with docket management, as the case cannot progress 21 without the filing fee being paid or Plaintiff being permitted to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. 22 §§ 1914, 1915. Therefore, the second factor weighs in favor of dismissal. Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 23 and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). However, “delay 24 inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” 25 id. at 643, and it is Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case and comply with court orders that is 26 causing delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 27 As for the availability of lesser sanctions, given that Plaintiff has chosen not to prosecute 28 1 | this action and has failed to comply with court orders, despite being warned of possible dismissal, 2 | there is little available to the Court besides dismissal which would constitute a satisfactory lesser 3 | sanction while protecting the Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. 4 | Notably, given the stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not 5 || available. Further, because the Court is recommending dismissal without prejudice, it has stopped 6 | Short of recommending the harsher sanction of dismissal with prejudice. Therefore, the fourth 4 factor weighs in favor of dismissal. g Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this final factor weighs 9 against dismissal. Id.

0 After weighing the factors, the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to assign a District Judge to this case. 2 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 1. This action be dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this case and failure to comply with court orders; and Is 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days 18 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 19 | with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 20 | and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15) pages, 21 | including exhibits. 22 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 23 | waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing 24 Baxter v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 | Dated: _ June 12, 2025 [sf Sy □ 37 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28