1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL L. CORONADO, Case No. 1:25-cv-01270-JLT-BAM 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER 14 OLD CASTLE INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., (Docs. 8, 11, 13) 15 Defendant. 16 17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff Michael L. Coronado is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action 19 against defendant Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc. (sued as “Old Castle Infrastructure”). Defendant 20 removed the action to this Court on September 25, 2025. (Doc. 1.) Defendant subsequently filed 21 a motion to dismiss complaint or, in the alternative, motion for a more definite statement on 22 October 2, 2025. (Doc. 8.) The motion was served on Plaintiff by mail on the same date. (Id. at 23 8.) 24 On October 8, 2025, the motion to dismiss was referred to the undersigned for findings 25 and recommendations. (Doc. 10.) Following the referral, the Court vacated the hearing on 26 Defendant’s motion to dismiss and directed Plaintiff that his opposition to Defendant’s motion 27 must be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the motion consistent with Local Rule 28 230(l). (Id.) Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition was due on or before October 1 27, 2025. Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition or otherwise respond to the motion. L.R. 2 230(l). 3 On November 5, 2025, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause in 4 writing, within twenty-one (21) days of service of the order, why the action should not be 5 dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. (Doc. 13.) The Court informed Plaintiff that he 6 could comply with the Court’s order by filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 7 Defendant’s October 2, 2025 motion to dismiss complaint or, in the alternative, motion for a more 8 definite statement. (Id. at 2.) The Court also informed Plaintiff that, alternatively, he could file a 9 notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Plaintiff was 10 expressly warned that if he failed to comply with the Court’s order, then this matter would be 11 dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Id.) Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order to show 12 cause, and the time in which to do so has expired. Plaintiff also has not filed an opposition to 13 Defendant’s motion or otherwise contacted the Court regarding this action. 14 II. Discussion 15 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 16 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 17 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 18 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 19 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth.,

(9th Cir. 1986). 20 A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 21 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. 22 Moran,

, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik 23 v. Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an 24 order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

, 130–33 25 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 26 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: 27 (1) the public’s interest in expeditions resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 28 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 1 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779

, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988). 3 Here, the action has been pending since September 2025, and Plaintiff’s response or 4 opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss is overdue. By way of the Court’s order to show 5 cause, Plaintiff was granted additional time to submit his opposition to Defendant’s motion to 6 dismiss, but he has failed to comply. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the 7 Court’s order would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. 8 Plaintiff is obligated to comply with the Local Rules and was informed by this Court of 9 the need to oppose the motion to dismiss. Despite Plaintiff’s duty to comply with all applicable 10 rules and the order, Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Plaintiff has not provided any indication 11 that he is attempting to prepare, or that he intends to submit, an opposition to Defendant’s motion 12 to dismiss. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if a party ceases litigating the case. 13 Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this action. 14 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, because 15 a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 16 action. Anderson v. Air W.,

(9th Cir. 1976). Because public policy favors 17 disposition on the merits, the fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan v. 18 Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party 19 whose responsibility is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct 20 impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 21 Prods. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006). 22 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the Court’s order will result in 23 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives requirement.” Ferdik,

; 24 Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s November 5, 2025 order 25 expressly warned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the order, then this matter would be 26 dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 13 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 27 dismissal of this action could result from his noncompliance. Further, at this stage in the 28 proceedings there is little available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser 1 sanction while protecting the Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. 2 The preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased 3 litigating this case. The Court cannot expend its limited resources resolving an unopposed 4 dispositive motion in a case that Plaintiff is no longer prosecuting. 5 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 6 For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 7 based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. 8 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 9 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title

(b)(1). Within 10 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 11 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 12 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 13 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 14 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 15 limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 16 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 17 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 18 v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)).

19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: December 8, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22

23 24 25 26 27 28