1 2 3 4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TIMOTHY SCOTT FOSSUM, Case No. 1:25-cv-00203-KES-BAM 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 11 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 12 BURTON, et al., (Doc. 2) 13 Defendants. FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

14 15 I. Background 16 Plaintiff Timothy Scott Fossum (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action 17 on February 14, 2025. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff neither paid the $405.00 filing fee nor submitted an 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to

. Accordingly, on 19 September 23, 2025, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to submit a completed and 20 signed application to proceed in forma pauperis or, in the alternative, pay the $405.00 filing fee 21 for this action within thirty days. (Doc. 2.) The Court’s order was returned as “Undeliverable, 22 Attempted-Not Known, Unable to Forward” on October 1, 2025. (See Docket.) 23 II. Discussion 24 Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Local 25 Rule 183(b) provides:

26 Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and 27 opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and 28 if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within thirty (30) days 1 thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 2 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal of an action for failure to 4 prosecute.1 5 Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than October 31, 2025. Plaintiff has failed to 6 file a change of address or otherwise update the Court. The Court will therefore recommend that 7 this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 8 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 9 required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 10 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 11 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 12 sanctions.” Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and 13 citation omitted); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation,

, 14 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions 15 that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA,

(citation 16 omitted). 17 Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Court’s order, the need for expeditious 18 resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. In 19 re PPA,

. The third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in 20 favor of dismissal, as a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in 21 prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor 22 usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. 23 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little 24 support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but 25 whose conduct impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re PPA,

1228 (citation omitted). More importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate 27 1 Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 28 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U. S. Forest Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 1 with Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to 2 prosecute this action and his failure to apprise the Court of his current address.

at 1228–29; 3 Carey,

. 4 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 5 Based on the above, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 6 without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 183(b). 7 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 8 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title

(b)(1). Within 9 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 10 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 11 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 12 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 13 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 14 limit may not be considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 15 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 16 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 17 v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19

20 Dated: November 3, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28