1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JEFFREY D. MATTIS, No. 2:25-cv-01704 SCR P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER and 13 JUSTIN GIBBS, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, who was formerly incarcerated in state prison, is proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis with this civil rights action under

. On August 21, 2025, the 18 undersigned screened plaintiff’s complaint and found it failed to state any cognizable claims for 19 relief. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff was granted thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 20 7.) Plaintiff was further advised that failure to file an amended complaint would result in the 21 recommendation that the action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 22 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). 4 “The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” 5 || Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

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

(9th Cir. 2002). The public policy favoring disposition 10 | of actions on the merits weighs against dismissal, but when “standing alone ... is not sufficient to 11 | outweigh the other four factors.” Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2006). 12 | The undersigned has also considered less drastic alternatives and concludes that dismissal without 13 || prejudice is appropriate. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 15 | assign a district judge to this matter. 16 In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed without prejudice for 17 | failure to prosecute, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and failure to comply with a court order, Local Rule 18 |} 110. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 20 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 21 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 22 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 23 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 24 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

25 | (9th Cir. 1991). 26 || DATED: October 14, 2025 md 27 SEAN C. RIORDAN 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE