1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KEVIN W. DUNIGAN, No. 2:25-cv-1786-SCR 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER AND 15 OTIS D. WRIGHT, JR., et al., FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 16 Defendants. 17 18 By order filed September 19, 2025, the court found plaintiff’s complaint defective and 19 granted 30 days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 8. The court warned plaintiff that failure 20 to comply would result in recommendations to dismiss this action. Id. Plaintiff has not filed an 21 amended complaint. On October 24, 2025, plaintiff filed a notice indicating that he would not be 22 filing an amended complaint. ECF No. 9. 23 When deciding whether to recommend dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, 24 the court must consider “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 25 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 26 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” 27 Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). “The public’s 28 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. 1 | Amplifier,

, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The court’s need to manage its docket also weighs 2 || 1n favor of dismissal, particularly given the heavy caseload in this District. The third factor is 3 || neutral given that plaintiff's complaint was screened out and defendant was not served, but 4 || “[u]nnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and 5 || evidence will become stale.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002). The 6 || fourth factor weighs against dismissal, but less so if plaintiff is not precluded from litigating this 7 || matter. The court has considered less drastic alternatives and concludes that dismissal without 8 || prejudice is appropriate. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign 10 | this matter to a district court judge. 11 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 12 | Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 15 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 16 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 17 | to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 18 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 19 | Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 20 | DATED: November 4, 2025 21

23 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25 26 27 28