1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BYRON ARNOLD, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-1569-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 15 DEVELOPMENT, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On June 18, 2025, I screened plaintiffs’ complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a 19 claim. ECF No. 13. I ordered plaintiffs to file, within thirty days, either an amended complaint 20 or a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action. Id. Plaintiffs failed to comply with that order. 21 Accordingly, on August 22, 2025, I ordered plaintiffs to show cause within fourteen days why 22 this action should not be dismissed. ECF No. 16. I notified plaintiffs that if they wished to 23 continue with this lawsuit, they must file an amended complaint. I also warned plaintiffs that 24 failure to comply with the August 22 order would result in a recommendation that this action be 25 dismissed. Id. I subsequently granted plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time and gave them 26 until October 15, 2025, to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 18. Notwithstanding that 27 extension, plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint. 28 1 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 2 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 3

, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 4 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 5 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). 6 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 7 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53-54 8 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 9 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended 10 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 11 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 12 U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 13 order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 14 prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 15 In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders, I 16 have considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 17 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 18 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” 19 Ferdik,

(citation omitted). 20 Here, plaintiffs failed to respond to the order directing them to file an amended complaint 21 or notice of voluntary dismissal. See ECF No. 13. Therefore, the public interest in expeditious 22 resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the 23 defendant all support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. Lastly, my warning to plaintiffs 24 that failure to obey court orders will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the 25 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 26 F.2d at 1424. The August 22, 2025 order expressly warned plaintiffs that failure to comply with 27 court orders would result in dismissal. ECF No. 6. Plaintiffs had adequate warning that dismissal 28 could result from noncompliance. I therefore find that the balance of factors weighs in favor of 1 | dismissal. 2 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to comply 4 | with court orders, and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the court’s June 18, 2025 5 | order. See ECF No. 13. 6 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(). Within fourteen days of 9 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 10 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 11 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 12 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 13 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 14 | Turner v. Duncan,

, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 15 1991). 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ November 19, 2025 Q_-——— 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28