(PC) Ramos v. Corsaletti

Filing 5

ORDER and FINDING and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 8/27/24 ORDERING that the Clerk is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this case. This case has been ASSIGNED to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. The new case number is 2:24-cv-01890-TLN-DMC (PC). It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. Matter REFERRED to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. (Salmeron, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANK RAMOS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

CORSALETTI,

15

No. 2:24-CV-1890-DMC-P

ORDER
and
Defendant.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

16
17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 12, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to resolve the fee status for this

19

case within 30 days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to resolve the fee status may result in

20

dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders.

21

See Local Rule 110. To date, Plaintiff has not complied.

22

The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal.

23

See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal

24

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in

25

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of

26

prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;

27

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

28

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate
1

1

sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone,

2

833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where

3

there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.

4

1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with an

5

order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

6

1992).

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Having considered these factors, and in light of Plaintiff’s failure to resolve the fee
status for this case as directed, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned orders and recommends as follows:
1.

It is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a

District Judge to this case.
2.

It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice,

for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders.

14

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

15

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

16

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

17

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

18

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See

19

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

20
21

Dated: August 27, 2024

____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2