1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY RICHARD TURNER, No. 2:25-cv-0933 DC CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SHERIFF THOMAS A. FERRARA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 By order filed September 19, 2025, petitioner’s first amended petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus was dismissed, and thirty days’ leave to file a second amended petition was granted. The 19 thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner has not responded to the Court’s order. 20 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the Court has 21 considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 22 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 23 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. 24 Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Because this case cannot 25 move forward without petitioner’s participation, the Court finds the factors weigh in favor of 26 dismissal. 27 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 28 dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). ] These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 4 || objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 5 || Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 6 || specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 7 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 9 | Dated: November 5, 2025 4 aA 10 \ Aaa spe CHI SOO KIM i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 || /1um0933.fta.hab 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28