1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSICA M. ESQUIVEL TORRES, No. 2:25-CV-02201-DJC-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 IRS FEDERAL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 18 Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. 19 The application Plaintiff filed is incomplete. On September 15, 2025, the court 20 directed plaintiff to submit either a completed application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 21 or the full filing fee for this action within 30 days. See ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was warned that 22 failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to 23 comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. To date, plaintiff has failed to comply. 24 The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 25 See Bautista v. Los Angeles County,

, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal 26 Service,

(9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in 27 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of 28 prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 1 and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

, 2 | 53 (th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate 3 || sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone, 4 |

-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where 5 || there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1423 (9th Cir. 6 || 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with an 7 || order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 8 || 1992). 9 Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff's failure to resolve the fee 10 || status for this case as directed, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. 11 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed, 12 || without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. 13 || Accordingly, the undersigned additionally recommends Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma 14 | pauperis be denied as moot. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 16 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within 14 days 17 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 19 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 20 || Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 | Dated: November 12, 2025 Co 23 DENNIS M. COTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28