1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORMAN GERALD DANIELS, III, Case No.: 1:19-cv-01801-KES-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 A. BAER, et al. Doc. 71

15 Defendants.

16 17 18 Plaintiff Norman Gerald Daniels, III proceeds pro se in this civil action filed pursuant to 19

. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On September 26, 2025, the then assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations, recommending that this matter be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to keep the 23 Court apprised of his current address and for his failure to obey a court order. Doc. 71. 24 Specifically, the magistrate judge found that the relevant factors—that is, the public’s interest in 25 expeditious resolution of litigation; the court’s need to manage its docket; the risk of prejudice to 26 the defendants; the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and the availability 27 of less drastic sanctions—weigh in favor of dismissing the case without prejudice as a sanction 1 (applying Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987) (failure to comply with 2 a court order)); see also Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (failure to 3 prosecute); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (failure to prosecute based on 4 noncompliance with local rule). The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 5 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. 6 Doc. 71 at 5. To date plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations, and 7 the time to do so has passed. 8 In accordance with

(b)(1), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 9 case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court finds that the conclusion that the relevant 10 factors support dismissal of this case without prejudice for failure to obey a court order and 11 failure to comply with Local Rule 183(b) is supported by the record. 12 As the findings and recommendations correctly note, the first two factors weigh in favor 13 of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s 14 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”). The public’s interest in 15 expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of 16 dismissal because the Court cannot effectively manage its docket, nor can the litigation be 17 expeditiously resolved, as plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address. 18 See Carey,

(“A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the 19 court apprised of any changes in his mailing address.”). 20 As to the third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendant also weighs in favor of 21 dismissal, given that unreasonable delay in a case gives rise to a presumption of injury to the 22 defendant. See, e.g., Anderson v. Air W., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1976); see also Carey, 23

(rejecting argument that an approximately two-month delay was not 24 unreasonable where plaintiff failed to keep court apprised of current address). While the fourth 25 consideration, that public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, generally weighs 26 against dismissal, here it lends little support “to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case 27 toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re 1 | omitted). 2 Finally, there is little else available to the Court that would constitute a satisfactory lesser 3 | sanction given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate with plaintiff. See, e.g., Gaston v. 4 | Marean,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2020) (“[G]iven the Court’s apparent 5 | inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to 6 | address Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this action.”). Without plaintiff having updated his current 7 | address, this matter cannot be prosecuted, nor can it be disposed of on its merits. 8 Accordingly: 9 1. The findings and recommendation issued on September 26, 2025, Doc. 71, are adopted in 10 full. 11 2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for plaintiff's failure to obey a court order and 12 for his failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address. 13 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 14 15 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 17 Dated: _ November 9, 2025 4h is UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28