1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTEN ERWIN, No. 2:24-cv-2126 DJC AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se and filed this case on August 7, 2024. ECF No. 1. The 18 action was referred to the undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local 19 Rule”) 302(c)(21). Plaintiff paid the filing fee and was instructed to complete service of process 20 within 90 days. ECF Nos. 2, 3. She did not timely complete service, and the undersigned issued 21 an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 22 8. Plaintiff responded stating that she had completed service. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff’s service was 23 improperly completed, and the court issued a second order to show cause, with additional 24 instructions for properly completing service. ECF No. 10. In response, plaintiff filed new service 25 documents, which were also inadequate. ECF No. 11, 12. The undersigned issued a third order 26 to show cause on June 6, 2025, again with instructions regarding completion of service. ECF No. 27 13. Plaintiff did not respond. 28 This case was filed nearly eleven months ago, and plaintiff has not successfully served the 1 | defendant despite ample instruction from the court. Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that 2 || this case cannot proceed and must be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 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). Because this case cannot 8 | move forward without plaintiffs participation and the successful service of process upon 9 || defendant, the court finds the factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 10 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 11 | prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 12 || Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within twenty-one 15 || (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 16 || objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 17 || Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 18 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 19 | Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 20 | DATED: June 24, 2025 ~ 71 MnCl ALLISON CLAIRE 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28