1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TING DUY NGUYEN, No. 2:25-cv-1152 DC AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and paid the filing fee. The action was 18 accordingly referred to the undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local 19 Rule”) 302(c)(21). On August 11, 2025, the court issued an Order to Show Cause explaining to 20 plaintiff that service on defendant was overdue and had not been properly completed. ECF No. 21 10 at 1. The undersigned explained how to complete service on an agency of the United States 22 Government and instructed plaintiff to properly complete service no later than September 26, 23 2025. Id. at 2. 24 Plaintiff responded to the Order to Show Cause on September 2, 2025. ECF No. 11. The 25 response does not address the issue of service. Instead, plaintiff explains that the Secret Service 26 has, for the past six years, been using brain-computer interface AI technology to “harass and 27 disturb the mind with torturing sounds.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserts that the brain-interface AI 28 system has “tormented me with death threats” and that this technology is “not just for surveillance 1 | and reading your thoughts, they also blast sounds to the mind and shocks to your brain.” Id. 2 || Because plaintiff has not successfully served the defendant, this case must be dismissed for 3 || failure to prosecute. Given the contents of plaintiffs response to the order to show cause, the 4 || court concludes that further opportunities to attempt service would be futile. 5 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has 6 || considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 7 || manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 8 | disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. 9 || Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Because this case cannot 10 || move forward without service on defendant, the court finds the factors weigh in favor of 11 || dismissal. 12 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 13 || prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 14 || Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within twenty-one 17 || (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 18 || objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 19 | Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 20 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 21 | Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 22 | DATED: October 6, 2025 * 23 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28