(PS) Garcia v. Robinson et al

Filing 5

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan on 3/11/2025 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with Court's Orders and Local Rules. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objection due within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. (Deputy Clerk OML)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

STEPHEN GARCIA,

11
12

No. 2:24-cv-2532-TLN-SCR

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13

GEORGE ROBINSON, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff Stephen Garcia is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the

18

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636. The undersigned

19

now recommends that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

20

On September 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma

21

pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1 and 2. On December 3, 2024, this Court screened the complaint

22

per the screening process required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found the complaint was

23

deficient in that it did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. ECF No. 3. The

24

complaint did not contain a short and plain statement setting forth the basis for federal jurisdiction

25

or showing Plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. ECF No. 3 at 3-4. The Court’s order provided in

26

relevant part that Plaintiff shall have 30 days to file an amended complaint, and such amended

27

complaint “must include a sufficient jurisdictional statement and comply with Rule 8.” Id. at 5.

28

The Order warned that failure to comply may result in a recommendation that the action be
1

1

dismissed. Id. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint.

2

On January 14, 2025, the Court issued an order to show cause why the action should not

3

be dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 4. The order

4

warned that failure to respond would result in a recommendation to dismiss the action. ECF No.

5

4 at 2. A review of the Court’s docket indicates that both of the Court’s prior orders were

6

returned as undeliverable. Parties to litigation have an obligation to keep the Court informed as to

7

their current address. See Local Rule 183(b) (“A party appearing in propria persona shall keep

8

the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address.”). If mail is returned as

9

undeliverable and the party “fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within thirty (30) days

10

thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to

11

prosecute.” Id.

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). As to factors one and two,

17

Plaintiff appears to have taken no action in this matter since the filing of the complaint six months

18

ago and has failed to respond to two court orders. “The public’s interest in expeditious resolution

19

of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.

20

1999). The Court’s need to manage its docket also weighs in favor of dismissal, particularly

21

given the heavy caseload in this District. The third factor is neutral given that there is no

22

demonstrable prejudice to Defendants at this point, however, “[u]nnecessary delay inherently

23

increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale.”

24

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). The fourth factor weighs against

25

dismissal. The Court has considered less drastic alternatives and concludes that dismissal without

26

prejudice is appropriate. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (“we can

27

imagine no less drastic sanction that was available” other than dismissal without prejudice where

28

the litigant had failed to update his address and any further order to show cause or order imposing
2

1

sanctions “would only find itself taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.”)

2

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without

3

prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and Local

4

Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rules 110, 183(b).

5

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

6

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

7

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

DATED: March 11, 2025

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3