1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN MIGUEL ZEPEDA, Case No. 2:25-cv-02439-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A 13 v. MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO 14 OFFICER ROTON, et al., PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 5) 16 17 Plaintiff Ruben Miguel Zepeda, proceeding without the aid of counsel, filed this 18 action in Stanislaus County Superior Court on June 12, 2025.1 Compl. (ECF No. 1 at 4- 19 9). On August 25, 2025, Defendants Officer Roton and City of Turlock, erroneously sued 20 as the Turlock Police Department, removed this action to this Court. Removal (ECF No. 21 1). On September 2, 2025, Defendants filed the pending motion for a more definite 22 statement pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(e) and noticed it for a hearing 23 for October 14, 2025 before the undersigned. Defs. Mot. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff’s 24 opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion was due September 16, 25 2025. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(c). Plaintiff did not respond. See Docket. On 26 September 24, 2025, after Plaintiff’s deadline to file an opposition or statement of non- 27 1 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to

(b)(1) and 28 E.D. Cal. Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 opposition to Defendants’ motion passed, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by 2 October 1, 2025 why the Court should not construe Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely 3 opposition as a non-opposition to Defendants’ motion and why this case should not be 4 dismissed for failure to prosecute. 9/24/2025 Order (ECF No. 6) (citing E.D. Cal. Local 5 Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). The Court also vacated the October 14, 2025 hearing 6 on Defendants’ motion.

Plaintiff did not respond. See Docket. On October 7, 2025, 7 Defendants filed a notice that no written response by Plaintiff was received as to their 8 motion. See ECF No. 7. For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends this action 9 be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 10 and Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement (ECF No. 5) be DENIED as moot. 11 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 12 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a court may dismiss an action for 13 failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 14 court’s local rules, or any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Ghazali v. 15 Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (approving dismissal under Rule 41(b) for a party’s 16 failure to follow the district court’s local rules). This court’s Local Rules are in accord. 17 See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 18 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 19 and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the 20 Court.”); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 183(a) (providing that a pro se party’s failure to comply 21 with the federal rules, local rules, or other applicable law may support dismissal of that 22 party’s action). The court may act on its own accord in exercising this authority. Hells 23 Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2005) 24 (approving sua sponte dismissals under Rule 41(b)). 25 The Ninth Circuit has found the following factors relevant in determining whether a 26 case should be dismissed under Rule 41(b): 27 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 28 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 1 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant(s); (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and 2 (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. 3 4 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger,

(9th Cir. 2019). 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 Applying the factors for involuntary dismissal, the Court finds this action should be 7 dismissed. See Applied Underwriters,

. The first two factors weigh in 8 favor of dismissal because the public has a strong interest in expeditious resolution of 9 litigation, and Plaintiff has failed to take the steps necessary to move this case forward 10 by failing to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion for a more 11 definite statement. In addition, this district court in particular has a strong need and 12 interest in managing its docket given the extremely high caseload in the Eastern District 13 of California. While the risk of prejudice to Defendants is somewhat minimal, there is 14 some prejudice given the impact on resources of stale litigation. 15 As to the fourth factor, the Court has already tried less drastic alternatives. 16 Specifically, Plaintiff previously missed the deadline to file an opposition or statement of 17 non-opposition to Defendants’ motion and was given an opportunity to explain this 18 failure. 9/24/2025 Order. Despite this, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s 19 September 24, 2025 order, respond to the motion for a more definite statement, or 20 participate in this litigation, leaving the Court with little alternative but to recommend 21 dismissal. 22 Finally, as to the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, that 23 factor is outweighed here. Indeed, it is Plaintiff’s own failure to prosecute the case and 24 comply with the rules that precludes a resolution on the merits. 25 Therefore, after careful consideration, the Court concludes dismissal for failure to 26 prosecute is appropriate. See Hells Canyon,

(approving court’s sua 27 sponte dismissal under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the 28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s orders). 1 RECOMMENDATIONS 2 Accordingly, IT |S HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's action be DISMISSED; 4 2. Defendant's motion for more definite statement (ECF No. 5) be DENIED as 5 moot; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 8 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within 9 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 10 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 11 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 12 | reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 13 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 14 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan,

, 15 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 | Dated: October 14, 2025 C iy $ \U 18 CHI S00 KIM 49 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 4, zepe2439.25 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28