Mark A. Jones v. Senogor, et al.

Opinion

MARK A. JONES, No. 2:17-cv-1422 DC AC P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SENOGOR, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed September 24, 2025, plaintiff was ordered to appear at the November 5, 2025 hearing on his former counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel and was cautioned that failure to appear would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 90. Plaintiff was further directed to contact the undersigned’s courtroom deputy to either provide an email address for receipt of Zoom information or request an in-person hearing. Id. After plaintiff failed to contact the court and did not appear at the hearing, he was ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and cautioned that failure to respond would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without further warning. ECF No. 93. The time to respond has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to show cause or otherwise responded to the court’s order. ] 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 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, any party 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.” Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 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 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: December 29, 2025 * ththienr—Chnp—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE