(PC) Robinson v. Willsmore

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DEANDRE ROBINSON, No. 2:24-cv-02510 SCR P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER and 13 NOAH WILLSMORE, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil 17 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 25, 2025, the undersigned screened plaintiff’s 18 complaint and found it failed to state any cognizable claims against defendants Willsmore or 19 Securus. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was granted thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. (Id. 20 at 7.) Plaintiff was further advised that if he failed to file an amended complaint, the undersigned 21 would recommend dismissal of the action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal 22 Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) 23 The time for plaintiff to amend his complaint has now passed, and plaintiff has not filed 24 an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the screening order. Accordingly, the 25 undersigned recommends that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to 26 comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 27 In recommending dismissal, the court has considered: “(1) the public’s interest in 28 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 1 | prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 2 | (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th 3 || Cir. 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 || “[uJ]nnecessary 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 || public policy favoring disposition of actions on the merits weighs against dismissal, but when 10 | “standing alone ... is not sufficient to outweigh the other four factors.” Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 11 | 464 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2006). The undersigned has also considered less drastic alternatives 12 | and concludes that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 14 | assign a district judge to this matter. 15 In addition, 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 13, 2025 26 md 27 SEAN C. RIORDAN 3g UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE