1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 SHARROD MOTEN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00188-KES-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 12 v. 13 Doc. 21 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR 14 GENERAL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Sharrod Moten is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action filed under

. On April 15, 2025, the assigned 19 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be 20 dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the 21 Court’s orders. Doc. 20. On July 8, 2025, the Court declined to adopt the findings and 22 recommendations and issued an order providing plaintiff a final opportunity to file an amended 23 complaint within thirty days. More than thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an 24 amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 25 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action for failure 26 to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. In determining whether to dismiss an 27 action under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the 28 Court weighs the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 1 litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to 2 defendants/respondents; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 3 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1423 (9th 4 Cir. 1986). 5 The Court finds that the Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The public’s 6 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh 7 in favor of dismissal because the Court cannot effectively manage its docket nor can the 8 litigation be expeditiously resolved if plaintiff does not litigate his case. See Yourish v. Cal. 9 Amplifier,

, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution 10 of litigation always favors dismissal.”). The court issued an order requiring plaintiff to file an 11 amended complaint and plaintiff has not responded to it. Doc. 21. 12 As to the third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendant also weighs in favor of 13 dismissal, given that unreasonable delay in a case gives rise to a presumption of injury to the 14 defendant. See, e.g., Anderson v. Air W., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1976). While the 15 fourth consideration, that public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, generally 16 weighs against dismissal, here it lends little support “to a party whose responsibility it is to 17 move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 18 direction.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liab. Litig.,

(9th 19 Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). 20 Finally, the Court’s warnings in its July 8, 2025 order, that plaintiff’s failure to comply 21 with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of this action, Doc. 21, satisfies the 22 “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1262 23 (9th Cir. 1992). Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little else available to the 24 court that would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction given plaintiff’s failure to file an 25 amended complaint. 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, 2 1. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 3 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 4 5 6 || IT IS SO ORDERED. _ T Dated: _ September 25, 2025 4h } | g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28