(PS) Ysaguirre v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 25

ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/7/2025 DIRECTING the clerk to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Allison Claire for all further proceedings. It is further RECOMMENDED this Action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections due within 21 days of service of these Findings and Recommendations. New Case Number: 2:23-cv-327 DAD AC. (Deputy Clerk VLK)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAID ZAIN YSAGUIRRE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

ORDER and

R. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

15

No. 2:23-cv-0327 AC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the

18

undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On September 27,

19

2024, the court granted a motion to compel brought by defendants and ordered plaintiff to

20

respond to defendants’ discovery requests within 30 days. ECF No. 22. The order was mailed to

21

plaintiff at the address plaintiff provided to the court but was returned undeliverable on October

22

7, 2024. See Docket Notation dated October 7, 2024. Plaintiff was directed to update his address

23

by December 16, 2024. Id. On November 1, 2024, defendants filed a mid-litigation statement

24

indicating that they had attempted to reach plaintiff at his last known address, and via an email

25

address that plaintiff previously used, but they have been unable to reach plaintiff. ECF No. 23 at

26

2. Defendants reported that they have not received the ordered discovery. The undersigned

27

issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute on

28

////
1

1

December 19, 2024. ECF No. 24. Plaintiff’s response was due January 3, 2025, but plaintiff did

2

not respond. Id.

3

In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has

4

considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to

5

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring

6

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v.

7

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has not participated

8

in discovery and has not prosecuted this case. Because this case cannot move forward without

9

plaintiff’s participation, the court finds the factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

10

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court assign a District Judge to

11

this case. It is further RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for

12

lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);

13

Local Rule 110.

14

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

15

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one

16

(21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

17

objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

18

Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

19

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

20

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

21

DATED: January 7, 2025

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2