1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HENRY ADAMS, Case No. 2:24-cv-2802-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SOLANO STATE PRISON, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 On July 30, 2025, I screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint and dismissed it for 18 failure to state a claim. ECF No. 18. I ordered plaintiff to file, within thirty days, either an 19 amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action. Id. Plaintiff failed to 20 comply with that order. Therefore, on September 23, 2025, I ordered plaintiff to show cause why 21 this action should not be dismissed. ECF No. 19. I notified plaintiff that if he wished to continue 22 with this lawsuit, he must file an amended complaint. I also warned plaintiff that failure to 23 comply with the September 23 order would result in a recommendation that this action be 24 dismissed. Id. Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause, and the time to do so has 25 passed. 26 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 27 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 28 1

, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 2 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 3 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). 4 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 5 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53-54 6 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 7 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended 8 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 9 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 10 U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 11 order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 12 prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 13 In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders, I 14 have considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 15 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 16 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” 17 Ferdik,

(citation omitted). 18 Here, plaintiff failed to respond to the order directing him to file an amended complaint or 19 notice of voluntary dismissal. See ECF No. 18. Therefore, the public interest in expeditious 20 resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the 21 defendant all support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. Lastly, my warning to plaintiff that 22 failure to obey court orders will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the 23 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 24 F.2d at 1424. The September 23, 2025 order expressly warned plaintiff that failure to comply 25 with court orders would result in dismissal. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff had adequate warning that 26 dismissal could result from noncompliance. I therefore find that the balance of factors weighs in 27 favor of dismissal. 28 1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district 2 | judge to this matter. 3 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to 5 | prosecute, and for failure to comply with court orders for the reasons stated in the July 30, 2025 6 | order. 7 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 10 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 11 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 12 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 13 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 14 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 15 | Turner v. Duncan,

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

(9th Cir. 16 1991). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( q Sty — Dated: _ December 4, 2025 q——— 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28