1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONALD ROOTS, No. 2:24-cv-01767-DC-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 13 v.

14 ROBERT W. FOX, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Donal Roots proceeds in this action without counsel. The action was accordingly 18 referred to the undersigned for pretrial matters by Eastern District of California (“Local Rule”) 19 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 24, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) On May 21, 2025, the 20 court issued an order granting defendants Katherine Carlson and Gavin Newsom’s motions to 21 dismiss (ECF Nos. 11, 12) and giving plaintiff thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. 22 (ECF No. 29.) This order was served on plaintiff. However, on June 2, 2025, the mail was 23 returned as undeliverable. (See Docket.) On October 10, 2025, the Court ordered plaintiff to show 24 cause for his failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff was 25 also warned that failure to respond to the order would result in a recommendation that his claims 26 be dismissed. (Id.) To date, plaintiff has not updated his address with the Court. Plaintiff has also 27 not filed an amended complaint. Thus, the Court recommends that plaintiff’s case be dismissed 28 for failure to prosecute. 1 I. Legal Standard 2 A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case 3 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her 4 case or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s 5 local rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,

(1991) (recognizing that a court “may 6 act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. 7 U.S. Forest Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (approving sua sponte dismissals under Rule 8 41(b)); Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district 9 court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260 10 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 22, 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), 11 the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”); 12 Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A.,

(9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) 13 (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions 14 including dismissal or default). This Court’s Local Rules are in accord. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 15 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court 16 may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule 17 or within the inherent power of the Court.”); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 183(a) (providing that a pro se 18 party’s failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s Local Rules, and 19 other applicable law may support, among other things, dismissal of that party’s action). 20 A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to 21 prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a District Court’s local 22 rules. See Ferdik,

. These are: 23 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 24 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 25 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 26

; accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002). 27 II. Analysis 28 Here, the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal, because this case has already been 1 delayed by plaintiff’s failure to take the steps necessary to move this case forward. The third 2 factor also slightly favors dismissal, because, at a minimum, defendants have been deprived of an 3 opportunity to be promptly notified of the lawsuit and prepare their defense. With the passage of 4 time, witnesses’ memories fade and evidence becomes stale. 5 Furthermore, the fifth factor, availability of less drastic alternatives, favors dismissal, 6 because the Court has already attempted less drastic alternatives. Specifically, the Court granted 7 plaintiff leave to amend, even though his complaint failed to state a claim. However, the court’s 8 mail was returned as undeliverable, and plaintiff never informed the court of any change of 9 address. See Local Rule 182(f) (imposing a duty on parties to notify the court and parties of any 10 change of address); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (“A party, not the district 11 court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in [the party’s] mailing 12 address.”). Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, nor has he updated his address with the 13 Court. See Docket. 14 Finally, as to the fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 15 merits, that factor is outweighed by the other Ferdik factors. Indeed, it is plaintiff’s own failure to 16 prosecute the case and comply with the rules that precludes a resolution on the merits. 17 Therefore, after carefully evaluating the Ferdik factors, the court concludes that dismissal 18 is appropriate. 19 CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 21 1. The action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and 22 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 25 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 26 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 27 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 28 shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 1 || objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 2 || waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan,

, 455 (9th 3 || Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 4 || Dated: December 9, 2025 Card Kt | / py la 4

6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 || 5, r00t.1767.24 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28