1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGER CLAYTON, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00073-KES-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

13 v.

14 J. DOER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Roger Clayton is a federal prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 10, 2025, the Court issued an order declining to adopt findings and 21 recommendations issued by the assigned magistrate judge and ordered plaintiff to take one of the 22 following options within thirty days: (1) file a notice stating his intention to stand on his initial 23 complaint, Doc. 1, which the magistrate judge has recommended be dismissed for the reasons 24 stated in the screening order, Doc. 5; (2) file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies 25 identified in the screening order, Doc. 5; or (3) file a notice voluntarily dismissing this action 26 without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Doc. 8. Plaintiff was warned that 27 the failure to timely respond to the Court’s order would result in the dismissal of this action.

. On December 2, 2025, the Court’s order was returned as “Undeliverable, No Longer at 1 Facility.”1 See docket. More than thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not taken any of the 2 options presented in the Court’s November 10, 2025 order. 3 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action for failure to 4 comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. In determining whether to dismiss an action 5 under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the Court weighs 6 the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 7 Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the 8 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 9 alternatives. Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). 10 The Court finds that the Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The public’s 11 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in 12 favor of dismissal because the Court cannot effectively manage its docket nor can the litigation be 13 expeditiously resolved if plaintiff does not litigate his case. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191

(9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 15 favors dismissal.”). The Court issued an order requiring plaintiff to file a notice stating his 16 intention to stand on his initial complaint, file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies 17 identified in the screening order, or file a notice voluntarily dismissing this action without 18 prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and plaintiff has not responded to it. Doc. 8. 19 As to the third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendants also weighs in favor of 20 dismissal, given that unreasonable delay in a case gives rise to a presumption of injury to the 21 defendant. See, e.g., Anderson v. Air W., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1976). While the 22 fourth consideration, that public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, generally 23 weighs against dismissal, here it lends little support “to a party whose responsibility it is to move 24 a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In 25 re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) 26 (citations omitted).

27 1 Though the Court’s order was returned as undeliverable, it was properly served. See L.R. 182(f) (absent notice of a pro se party’s change of address, service of documents at the prior address of 1 Finally, the Court’s warning in its November 10, 2025 order, that plaintiff's failure to 2 | timely respond to that order would result in dismissal of this action, Doc. 8, satisfies the 3 | “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1262 4 | (9th Cir. 1992). Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little else available to the 5 | court that would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction given the Court’s apparent inability to 6 | communicate with plaintiff. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 9 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 10 11 12 | TIS SO ORDERED. _ 13 Dated: _ December 11, 2025 4h 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28