(PC) Bennett v. FBI

Opinion

DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:24-cv-1038-KJM-SCR Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS INVESTIGATION, et al., Defendants. By order filed June 3, 2025, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. ECF No. 17. More than 30 days from that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or requested additional time to do so. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim and for failure to comply with a court order. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted is warranted for the reasons provided in the court’s order filed June 3. ECF No. 17 at 3-4. Dismissal is also warranted for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order that he file an amended complaint. When deciding whether to recommend dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, the Court must consider “(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). “The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court’s need to manage its docket also weighs in favor of dismissal, particularly given the heavy caseload in this District. The third factor is neutral given that most defendants have not yet appeared, but “[u]nnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). The fourth factor weighs against dismissal, but less so if Plaintiff is not precluded from litigating this matter. The Court has considered less drastic alternatives and concludes that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. 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 twenty one 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 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: July 11, 2025 A Kink UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE