1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ERIC ANTHONY ARMSTRONG, No. 2:25-cv-00904 DC SCR P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 COUNTY OF PLUMAS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, who is incarcerated in county jail, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 17 with this civil rights action under

. On August 28, 2025, the undersigned 18 screened plaintiff’s complaint and found it failed to state any cognizable claims for relief. (ECF 19 No. 8.) Plaintiff was granted thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff 20 was further advised that failure to file an amended complaint would result in the recommendation 21 that the action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. 22 at 14.) 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 RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed without 15 || prejudice for failure to prosecute, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and failure to comply with a court order, 16 | Local Rule 110. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1).. Within twenty-one (21) 19 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 20 | objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 21 | Judges Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 22 | the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 23 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 || DATED: October 28, 2025 25 mk

27 28