1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY LEE WILLIAMS, No. 2:24-cv-02148 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and 14 TRIMPEY, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is incarcerated in a county jail and proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 18 a civil rights action under

. On July 21, 2025, the undersigned screened 19 plaintiff’s complaint and found it failed to state any cognizable claims for relief. (ECF No. 14.) 20 Plaintiff was granted thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff was 21 further advised that failure to file an amended complaint would result in the recommendation that 22 the action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) 23 The time for plaintiff to amend his complaint has now passed, and plaintiff has not filed 24 an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the screening order. Accordingly, the 25 undersigned recommends that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to 26 comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 27 In recommending dismissal, the court has considered: “(1) the public’s interest in 28 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 1 | prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 2 | (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th 3 || Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). “The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 4 | favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The court’s 5 || need to manage its docket also weighs in favor of dismissal, particularly given the heavy caseload 6 || in this District. The third factor is neutral given no defendants have appeared, but “[u]nnecessary 7 || delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become 8 | stale.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002). The public policy favoring 9 || disposition of actions on the merits weighs against dismissal, but when “standing alone ... 1s not 10 | sufficient to outweigh the other four factors.” Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp.,

(9th 11 | Cir. 2006). The undersigned has also considered less drastic alternatives and concludes that 12 | dismissal without prejudice 1s appropriate. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 14 | assign a district judge to this matter. 15 In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed without prejudice for 16 | failure to prosecute, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and failure to comply with a court order, Local Rule 17 |} 110. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 20 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 21 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 22 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 23 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

24 | (9th Cir. 1991). 25 || DATED: September 24, 2025 26 md 27 SEAN C. RIORDAN 08 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE