Stefano Parker v. Unknown

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEFANO PARKER, No. 2:25-cv-2617 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS UNKNOWN, 15 Defendants.

17 On September 11, 2025, plaintiff, a state prisoner currently out to hospital and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 On September 17, 2025, the Court observed that plaintiff failed to sign his complaint, and granted plaintiff an opportunity to re-file his complaint bearing his signature within thirty days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not re-filed his complaint bearing his signature or otherwise responded to the order requiring him to do so.2 Because plaintiff failed to correct the lack of a signature as required under Rule 11, plaintiff’s 1 Plaintiff also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and ruling on plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis was deferred. (ECF No. 5 at 1 n.1.)

27 2 On September 29, 2025, plaintiff did re-file a copy of his motion bearing his signature (ECF No. 6), but plaintiff did not include a signed complaint or otherwise address the requirement that he provide a signed complaint. (ECF No. 6.)

1 | unsigned complaint is stricken, and this Court recommends that this action be dismissed for || failure to prosecute.

3 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the Court has || considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to || manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring || disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. || Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Because this case cannot | move forward without plaintiffs participation, the Court finds the factors weigh in favor of || dismissal.

10 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is | directed to strike plaintiff's unsigned complaint (ECF No. 1), and to assign a district judge to this || case.

13 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See | Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District || Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 1991).

23 || Dated: January 13, 2026 A aA 24 Ly {nn spe CHI SOO KIM 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE || //park2617.56