1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 PRINCE PAUL RAYMOND WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00957-JLT-SAB

12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 13 v. ACTION

14 WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., (ECF No. 14) et al., 15 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN Defendants. DAYS 16 17 Prince Paul Raymond Williams (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis, filed this action on August 4, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) On October 15, 2025, the 19 undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file his third amended complaint, limited to twenty-five pages in 20 length. (ECF No. 14.) In its order, Plaintiff was advised that, “If Plaintiff fails to file a third 21 amended complaint in compliance with this order, the Court will recommend to a district judge 22 that this action be dismissed consistent with the reasons stated in this order.” (Id.) (emphasis in 23 original). The deadline for Plaintiff to file his amended complaint has now passed, and the Court 24 will now recommend that this matter be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply 25 with the Court’s October 15, 2025 order. 26 / / / 27 / / / / / / 1 I. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 4 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 5 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 6 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 7 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cty.,

, 841 (9th Cir. 8 2000); Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010). 9 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 10 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran,

, 11 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended 13 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 14 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 15 United States Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 16 with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack 17 of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 18 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the Court must 19 weigh: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 20 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 21 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 22 F.2d at 1440 (quoting Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423). These factors guide a court in deciding 23 what to do and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re 24 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006). 25 In this instance the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation and the 26 Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Plaintiff has failed to comply or 27 otherwise respond to the Court’s order. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order of the Court 1 does not intend to diligently litigate this action. 2 Since it appears that Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently there arises a 3 rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendants in this action. In re Eisen,

, 4 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). The risk of prejudice to the Defendants also weighs in favor of 5 dismissal. 6 The public policy in favor of deciding cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors 7 in favor of dismissal. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to move this action forward. This action can 8 proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the 9 action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. The Court finds this 10 factor does not outweigh Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order. 11 Finally, a court’s warning to a party that their failure to obey the court’s order will result 12 in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Malone, 833 at 132-33. 13 The Court’s October 15, 2025 order expressly stated: “If Plaintiff fails to file a third amended 14 complaint in compliance with this order, the Court will recommend to a district judge that this 15 action be dismissed consistent with the reasons stated in this order.” (ECF No. 14) (emphasis in 16 original). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal of this action would result from 17 noncompliance with the Court’s order. 18 II. 19 RECOMMENDATION 20 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without 21 prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to abide by the Court’s order and failure to prosecute. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 23 action, pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 24 (14) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to these 25 findings and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned 26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The District Judge will 27 review the undersigned’s findings and recommendations pursuant to

(b)(1)(C). 1 | waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing 2 | Baxter v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. Se 6 | Dated: _ November 18, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28