1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MEGHAN COLE, Case No. 2:24-cv-0792-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SHANNDAH BURKHOLDER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On February 28, 2025, I granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and 18 ordered her to submit documents for service of process to the United States Marshal within sixty 19 days. ECF No. 4. I also ordered plaintiff to file declaration stating the date on which she 20 submitted the required documents to the U.S. Marshal. Id. Plaintiff failed to comply with that 21 order. Accordingly, on November 19, 2025, I order plaintiff to show cause why this action 22 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court. ECF No. 6. 23 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed responded to the court’s order. 24 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 25 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 26

, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 27 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 28 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). 1 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 2 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53-54 3 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 4 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended 5 complaint); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 6 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 7 U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 8 order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 9 prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 10 In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders, I 11 have considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 12 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 13 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” 14 Ferdik,

(citation omitted). 15 Here, plaintiff failed to respond to the order directing her to show cause why this action 16 should not be dismissed. See ECF No. 6. Therefore, the public interest in expeditious resolution 17 of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants all 18 support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. Lastly, my warning to plaintiff that failure to 19 obey court orders will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” 20 requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson,

. 21 The November 19, 2025 order expressly warned plaintiff that failure to comply with court orders 22 would result in dismissal. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result 23 from her noncompliance. I therefore find that the balance of factors weighs in favor of dismissal. 24 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 25 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to 26 comply with court orders. 27 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 28 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 3 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 4 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 5 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 6 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 7 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 8 || Turner v. Duncan,

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

(9th Cir. 9 | 1991). 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ December 16, 2025 Q————. 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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