(PC) Robinson v. Willsmore

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEANDRE ROBINSON, No. 2:24-cv-02246 DAD SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 NOAH WILLSMORE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil 18 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 16, 2025, the undersigned screened plaintiff’s 19 complaint and found it failed to state any cognizable claims against defendant Willsmore. (ECF 20 No. 21.) Plaintiff was granted thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff 21 was further advised that if he failed to file an amended complaint, the undersigned would 22 recommend dismissal of the action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules 23 of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 6-7.) The time for plaintiff to amend his complaint has now passed, 24 and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the screening order. 25 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the action be dismissed for failure to 26 prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. In 27 recommending dismissal, the court has considered: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 28 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 1 || defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 2 | availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 3 || 1992) (citation omitted). “The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 4 | favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The court’s 5 || need to manage its docket also weighs in favor of dismissal, particularly given the heavy caseload 6 || in this District. The third factor is neutral given that most defendants have not yet appeared, but 7 || “[uJnnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and 8 | evidence will become stale.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). The 9 || fourth factor weighs against dismissal, but when “standing alone,” the public policy favoring 10 | disposition of actions on the merits “is not sufficient to outweigh the other four factors.” Leon v. 11 | IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2006). The undersigned has also considered less 12 | drastic alternatives and concludes that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. In sum, 13 || because this case cannot move forward without plaintiffs participation, the court finds the Ferdik 14 | factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 15 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed without prejudice for 16 | failure to prosecute, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and failure to comply with a court order, Local Rule 17 |} 110. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 20 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 21 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 22 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 23 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 24 | (9th Cir. 1991). 25 || DATED: August 4, 2025 26 mk 27 SEAN C. RIORDAN 38 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE