1

2

3

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BILLY J. STAFFORD, Case No. 1:25-cv-00835-EPG 10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 11 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE 12 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR SECURITY, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT 13 Defendant. ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY 15 (30) DAYS 16 (ECF No. 5).

17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff Billy J. Stafford proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this social security case 19 filed on July 10, 2025. (ECF Nos. 1, 3). The Court issued a scheduling order on July 11, 2025, 20 which required Plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment within 30 days after service of the 21 administrative record. (ECF No. 5). This order warned the parties as follows: “Violations of this 22 order or of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules may result in sanctions 23 pursuant to Local Rule 110.”1 (Id. at 3). Defendant filed the administrative record, (ECF No. 4), 24 and then its proof of service by mail of the administrative record on Plaintiff on September 4, 25 2025 (ECF No. 10). 26

27 1 Local Rule 110 states as follows: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by 28 statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 1 Because Plaintiff has failed to timely file a motion for summary judgment, the Court will 2 recommend dismissal without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order 3 and failure to prosecute this case. 4 II. ANALYSIS In determining whether to dismiss a[n] [action] for failure to prosecute or failure to 5 comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the 6 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the 7 availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. 8 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 10 “‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.’” 11

(quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier,

, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). Therefore, the 12 first factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 13 As to the Court’s need to manage its docket, “[t]he trial judge is in the best position to 14 determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with docket management and the 15 public interest. . . . It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to 16 routine noncompliance of litigants. . . .” Id. (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff has failed to timely 17 comply with the Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment. 18 Moreover, Plaintiff has not filed anything since this case was initiated on July 10, 2025. 19 Therefore, the second factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 20 Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 21 and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). However, “delay 22 inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale.” Id. at 643. While social security cases proceed differently than other types of civil actions, the 23 delay at issue here, Plaintiff’s failure to file a motion for summary judgment, nonetheless 24 effectively halts any progress in this matter, as the Court cannot address the merits until Plaintiff 25 presents Plaintiff’s arguments in a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the third factor 26 weighs in favor of dismissal. 27 As for the availability of lesser sanctions, given that Plaintiff has chosen not to comply 28 1 with a court order or prosecute this action, despite being warned of possible sanctions, there is 2 little available to the Court besides dismissal which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction 3 while protecting the Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Because 4 the Court is recommending dismissal without prejudice, it has stopped short of recommending the 5 harsher sanction of dismissal with prejudice. Therefore, the fourth factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 6 Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this final factor weighs 7 against dismissal. Id. 8 After weighing the factors, the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. 9 III. ORDER, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a District Judge to this 11 case. 12 And IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. This case be dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply 14 with a court order and failure to prosecute this case. 15 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 17 Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within 18 thirty (30) days after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party 19 may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Any objections shall be 20 limited to no more than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits. Such a document should be 21 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the 22 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. 23 \\\ \\\ 24 \\\ 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 1 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result 2 | in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing 3 1 Baxter v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). 4 ; IT IS SO ORDERED.

6| Dated: _ October 20, 2025 [Jee ey □□ 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28